PRAKASH K SRIVASTAVA Vs. TEHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order at Annexure-X dated 26. 10. 2005 passed by the Tahsildar Bangalore North Taluk, the 1st respondent herein is assailed in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has ordered to revert the land to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas and 0. 13 guntas respectively, situated in Syno. 49/1 and 49/2 of Hebbalu village of Bangalore North Taluk to the legal representatives of original grantees, and ordered to restore katha in the joint names of the legal heirs of original grantees namely, Krishnappa S/o Late Chikkaiah, Munihanumappa S/o late Chikkamuniswamy, Thimmaraju S/o. Late Thimmarayappa, Venkatamma W/o Late ramaiah and Hanumakka W/o Late Kempaiah, on the ground that the said land has been alienated in contravention of Section 5 (3) of the" Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short ).

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

(3.) SRI G. S. Vishweswara, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the 1st respondent-Tahsildar has totally misdirected himself while comim of the conclusion inasmuch as, certain facts which are not on record , e taken into consideration and that the 1st respondent has proceeded on the ground that the sale deed in question are contrary tc tnc amended provision of Section 5 (3) of the Act; that the 1st respondent has not at all taken into consideration the relevant records such as, the order dated 22. 1. 1996 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 360/1994 vide Annexure-K, the order dated 11. 4. 2002 passed by this Court in W. RNo. 30015-16/2000 vide Annexure-Q, the orders dated 18. 3. 2004, 18. 5. 2004 and 23. 2. 2005 passed by the Planning Authority vide Annexures-S, annexure-V and W respectively and the order dated 21. 2. 2004 passed by the State Government vide Annexure-T, approving the change of land use; that the land was re-granted as back as on 6. 6. 1973 and the sale deeds are executed by the re-grantees after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority on 27. 3. 1973 and therefore, the provisions of the amended Act have no application to the facts of the present case and hence, the impugned order annulling the sale deeds and reverting the lands in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantees is liable to be quashed. Per Contra Shri Jayakumar S. Patil and Shri Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of contesting respondents argued in support of the impugned order.