IRAGAMMA Vs. B N RANGAIAH SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 15-5-1997, which is as follows:

(2.) THE fact that gave rise to the petition is that the petitioner is the daughter of one Chowdappa. The first respondent is the son and the second respondent is the grandson of one Shamaiah Setty. The said Shamaiah Setty filed a suit against the father of Chowdappa in O. S. No. 220 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Kolar for recovery of the money and the same came to be decreed. The said Shamaiah Setty filed an Execution Case No. 254 of 1973 and brought Sy. Nos. 75/7, 13, 34/1 and 92 of Beeramahalli, in all measuring 10 acres 3 guntas. On 13-10-1976 the said B. K. Shamaiah Shetty admittedly purchased the schedule land in Court sale. To set aside the said sale, o. S. No. 419 of 1977 was filed. Though the suit was dismissed, the appeal was allowed and the same was held to be in violation of K. L. R. Act and the Appellate Court declared in RA No. 65 of 1990 that the sale is not valid and void in the eye of law. But the Assistant Commissioner passed an order before the disposal of the appeal by the Civil Court. Therefore, he relied upon only the order of the Munsiff. It is contended that once the sale is set aside the petitioner becomes the owner of the property and the forfeiture made by the Government on the ground that there is violation of the terms of the grant, is not correct. Again the sale was an act done through the court of law for which the petitioner is not responsible. Consequently, he prayed for restoration of the land back to him, setting aside the forfeiture.

(3.) THE learned Counsel Mr. Chandramohan appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the sale in favour of his client's father is still valid. But he was evidently unaware of the disposal of ra No. 65 of 1990 where the sale has been set aside. It is seen no further appeal has been filed against RA No. 65 of 1990 and the order has become final. However, he contended that having lost his money, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the earlier order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the decree of the Munsiff and the latter order no doubt has taken into consideration the judgment of the first appeal and taking into consideration the order was passed the Appellate Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal both on merits and on the question of delay.