NANJAPPA, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore dated 20.10.2012 in R.P.No.406/2010 -11 (Annexure -A) and the order passed in the Review Petition against the earlier order in R.P.No.406/2010 -11 dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure -A1) are assailed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his other family members were re -granted lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act ) by order dated 05/06/1974 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.350 measuring 10 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.337 measuring 21 guntas at Muthanallur Amanikere Grama, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The said lands were attached to Neeraganti Service Inam lands. Even prior to that, the lands were agreed to be sold by agreements to sell dated 28.10.1967 and 08.08.1969. As the sale deeds were not executed by the grantees, the agreement holders namely Patel Muni Reddy and Krishna Reddy filed O.S.No.914/1974 and O.S.No.916/1974 seeking specific performance of those agreements in respect of Sy.No.350 and 337 respectively as per the aforesaid extents. The said suits were decreed by way of a settlement on 12.04.1978 and 07.04.1978 respectively. Thereafter, the sale deeds were executed in execution proceedings in favour of agreement holders named above on 22.06.1984. It is significant to mention that those sale deeds were registered only on 26.12.1995. Contending that the sale deeds executed on 22.06.1984 were in violation of sub -Section 3 of Section 5 of the 1961 Act, an application was filed by the petitioner herein before the 4th respondent Tahsildar contending that the purchasers were unauthorized holders. That application was allowed. Being aggrieved by that order, respondents No.5 -7 had preferred appeal in R.A(A).No.32/2009 -10. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 01.02.2011. Against which, the said respondents had preferred Revision Petition No.406/2010 -11 before the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore. By the impugned order at Annexures -A and A1, 2nd respondent has allowed the Revision Petition and dismissed the review petition respectively. Being aggrieved by those orders, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.5 who has filed Caveat Petition on behalf of respondent No.5 and perused the material on record.