BATHAL GURAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner is a widow belonging to Scheduled Caste and She is the owner of the land in question and it is stated that it is her only source of livelihood. She has a family of 3 sons and 3 daughters and the entire family is dependent on the income arising out of this land. It was purchased by the petitioner's husband when the land was remaining uncultivated. The land was taken by respondent-3 under the scheme of rehabilitation of the displaced holders claiming to be a displaced holder of land having lost the same on account of the submerging resulting from the Bhadra Project. According to the petitioner, the land was not given to respondent-3 under any scheme which is intended for grant of land to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is also stated that respondent-3 belongs to Tamil Nadu and is indentifiable as a Gounder and, therefore, he is not at all a member of the Scheduled Caste. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent-3 is not entitled to any benefit which is extended to members of Scheduled Caste in so far as land-grant is concerned. On 16-9-1986 respondent-2 passed an order directing the restoration of the schedule land to respondent-3 and appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by respondent-1 on 23-12-1986.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the question whether respondent-3 belongs to the Gounder community and that he is not a member of the Scheduled Caste has not been gone into by holding an enquiry and that respondent-2 has passed the impugned order which does not throw any light on the question. It is further contended that the order of respondent-2 is devoid of reasons in support of the finding. It is next contended that the appellate authority has not applied his mind nor given a considered finding as to whether respondent-2 has determined whether respondent-3 belongs to the Gounder Community. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the orders of both respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders.