LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-281

K. NAGARAJA RAO Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

Decided On December 08, 2014
K. Nagaraja Rao Appellant
V/S
The Tahsildar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein are impugning the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by respondent No. 3 in appeal No. 13/2004 -05 filed by petitioners herein, sofar as it pertains to confiscating the land bearing Sy. Nos. 881/2B and 881/2C of Venkatapura village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, each measuring 4 acres and together 8 acres.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

(3.) IN the remanded proceedings, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and liberty was reserved to the Government to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition on the ground that in the proceedings initiated for cancellation of katha, order of resumption cannot be made. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, proceeding was again initiated by the Tahasildar in No. Bhumi:27:99 -2000, wherein, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners herein, the Tahasildar by order dated 30.06.2001 cancelled the order of grant in favour of Sri. Shivalingappa and Sri. Gavi Siddappa, which was taken up in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in appeal No. BVL/Kandaya/Bhumi/Appeal/52/2002 -03/and appeal No. 19/2001 -02, wherein, respondent No. 2 - Assistant Commissioner, while reconsidering the order of Tahasildar, allowed the appeal filed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and set aside the order of Tahasildar in cancelling the grant, relying upon the judgment rendered by a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Gavi Sidde Gowda v. State of Karnataka reported in : ILR 1995 KAR 113. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary under Section 50(1)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 11.09.2006 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and consequently, upheld the order of Tahasildar dated 30.06.2001 in confiscating the land to the Government, which is challenged in this proceedings.