B MAHESWARAPPA Vs. SUBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The attack of the petitioner is on the finding of the Special Deputy Commissioner who is respondent No. 3 herein that the original grantee belonged to a caste called "Shillikyatha".

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a sale deed as well as the grant application of the year 1956, which make it abundantly clear through the recitals that the original grantee belonged to "Bunde Bestha" community. He also pointed out that the Counsel for the respondent had admitted before the Deputy Commissioner that the original grantee is a member of "Burude Bestha" community and not "Bunde Bestha" community. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner irrespective of the question whether the original grantee belonged to "Burude Bestha" or "Bunde Bestha" community, in any event, they do not fall into the category of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) I have looked into the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. Inspite of the admission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner has observed as follows:- "The Karnataka Backward Class Commission Report, 1975, by L.C3. Havanoor, also mentions a caste by name "Bundc Bestha" but there is no caste by name "Burude Bestha" in the backward class or backward Tribe category. There are no synonyms to "Bunde Bestha" as "Burude Bestha". The documents relied upon by the appellant counsel specify the caste of the respondent as "Burude Bestha". Hence the respondent cannot be a person belonging to "Bunde Bestha" community.