SRI LAKSHMAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,CHICKBALLAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of respondent No.3, Sri Narasappa, had made an application on 20.06.1959, claiming registration of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, under the provisions made in the Mysuru (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and the Rules made thereunder. Considering the said application, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, in Case No.69/1959-60 passed an order dated 10.03.1962 and granted occupancy rights over the land in question. The grantee Narasappa and his family members transferred the land in question to one Sri K.M. Thammaiah, under registered sale deed dated 14.06.1964. Sri K.M. Thammaiah, in turn sold the property as per a sale deed dated 20.11.1974 in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land, which is the subject matter of consideration in this writ petition.

(2.) The respondent No.3 having made an application before respondent No.2, for resumption and restoration of the land in question, under the provisions of Karnataka Act 2 of 1979, by an order dated 20.01.2006, the claim made by respondent No.3 was allowed and the land in question was ordered to be resumed from the petitioner and restored to respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5(A) of the Act, before respondent No.1. Said appeal having been dismissed by an order dated 21.07.2008, this writ petition was filed to quash the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, statedand grant consequential reliefs.

(3.) Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned advocate, contended that the occupancy right in respect of the property in question having been conferred on the father of the 3rd respondent, under the provisions of the Mysuru (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and the property being not a granted land in respect of which the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978, is attracted, the respondent No.2 has committed illegality in exercising the jurisdiction and passing the order dated 20.01.2006 vide Annexure-G. He submitted that in the appeal filed, the first respondent without consideration of the matter in accordance with law, having passed the order dated 21.07.2008, vide Annexure-H, the same being contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2002 ILR(Kar) 4693 and thus illegal, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the claim made by respondent No.3 before respondent No.2 negated as not maintainable.