SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

ASHWATHAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 40247/2016



- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.40247 OF 2016 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN

1. ASHWATHAMMA,

D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

2. LAKSHMAMMA,

D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

3. KAMALAMMA,

D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/O ATTIBELE VILLAGE,

SULEBELE POST, HOSAKOTE TQ,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-563160.

4. MANJUNATH M.C,

S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

R/O MALLEPURA VILLAGE

CHENNARAYAPATANA HOBLI,

REDDIHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562104.

5. NARASAMMA @ NAVYA,

W/O RAMESH,

D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA,

- 2 -

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

R/O MALLEPURA VILLAGE

CHENNARAYAPATANA HOBLI,

REDDIHALLI POST, DEVANAHALLI,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562104.

6. YASHODAMMA,

W/O RAVIKUMARA,

D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

R/O PUJENAGRAHARA VILLAGE,

GATTIGINABBI POST, HOSAKOTE TQ,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-563160.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION,

DODDABALLAPUR-561203.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

BANGALORE-560001.

3. SRI CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA,

S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

4. B.C.NAGAVENI,

D/O CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

5. SMT. SHIVAMMA,

W/O CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

AMENDED WITH PERMISSION

AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2020

- 3 -

R4 & R5 ARE LRS OF

DECEASED - RESPONDENT NO.3.

6. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI,

D/O CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOs.3 TO 6 ARE

RESIDING AT BALEPURA,

CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,

DEVANAHALLI TQ,

BANGALORE (R) DIST-562104.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SRI K.S.ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,

SRI K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;

VIDE ORDER DATED 06.03.2020 R4 TO R6 ARE TREATED AS

LR’S OF R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION IN CASE NO.LND.SCPTL.5/84-

85

DTD:

28.08.89

AND

ANNEXURE-J

PASSED

BY

THE

DY.COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE

RURAL

DISTRICT

IN

LND.SC.ST(A).30/2007-2008 DTD:24.2.2015 BY DECLARING

THEM AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioners claim to be the grand children of

Sri.Addemunishamappa who was granted 2 acres of land in

Sy.No.49/3 of Mallepura Village, Channarayapatana Hobli,

- 4 -

Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, on 14.08.1948.

Although a non-alienation clause of 10 years was incorporated in

the grant certificate, it was the contention of the original grantee

before the Assistant Commissioner that as per the rules

prevailing on the date of the grant, the rule prescribed

permanent non-alienation. Sri. Addemunishamappa the original

grantee

sold the property on 03.03.1965

in

favour of

Chikkananjundappa. After the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,

1978 came into force from 01.01.1979, Suo-motu proceedings

were initiated as per the report of the Tahsildar on 07.07.1985.

Sri. Chikkananjundappa, the purchaser was issued notice to

appear before the Assistant Commissioner. He contended before

the Assistant Commissioner that after purchasing the properties

he has grown Neelagiri trees and the sale should not be set

aside. By order dated 03.03.1986 the Assistant Commissioner

held that there is violation of conditions of grant and that the

respondents were not in continuous occupation of the property

for more than 30 years and therefore, he could not claim

adverse possession and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner

- 5 -

proceeded to order resumption and restoration of land in favour

of the original grantee. It is the contention of the petitioners that

on 15.0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top