HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is by the 4th respondent in the writ petition challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 12620 of 2009 (Eshwarappa (since dead) by his L.Rs v. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga and Others' : 2012(6) Kar. L.J. 103), wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated as under:

(2.) SRI S.V. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, along with the father of the appellant, seven other persons were granted different extent of land in Sy. No. 38 of Sanyasikodamagge Village of Bhadravathi Taluk and grant made in favour of the said seven persons also came to be set aside by the Tahsildar and all of them preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar in cancelling the grant of lands made in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed their appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. But some of them did not stop at that stage and they carried the matter further by preferring second appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed their appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsideration and in view of the same, the entire matter is pending for consideration before the Tahsildar, thereby he submits that the order passed by the Tahsildar in cancelling the grant of lands made in favour of 8 persons including the father of the appellant is under consideration.

(3.) IT is also to be noted that the father of the appellant had owned 5 acres of arecanut land in Bhadravathi Taluk and after his death mutation of the said arecanut land came to be effected in the name of the appellant, that being so, neither the appellant nor his father was entitled for grant of any land in their favour including the land in question. The Tahsildar after coming to know that the father of the appellant had failed to bring the land granted to him under cultivation within the stipulated period, on the other hand he had alienated the same in favour of a third party within the period of non -alienation and further he was owning 5 acres of arecanut land and he was not eligible to be granted the land in question has rightly cancelled the grant of land made in favour the father of the appellant.