Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Wa2870 14 10 03 2015

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2870 OF 2014 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN :

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR,


AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O SMT MUNIPOOJAMMA,
(W/O LATE TALARI VENKATARAYAPPA),
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125,
CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri. V.K NARAYANASWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA


REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER


CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHICKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

3. SRI K.V. RAMAKRISHNAPPA


AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.K.VENKATARAYAPPA,
R/AT ANJANI EXTENSION,
CHINTAMANI - 563 125.

4. SMT. K.R. SHYAMALA


W/O ARI RAM MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT AMUNENI ROAD,
MADANAPALLI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT A.P-517 325.

5. SMT. K.R. LAVANYA


AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O SRI M. SRINIVAS,
R/AT ANJANI EXTENSION,
CHINTAMANI - 563 125.

6. SRI.C.K. SHABBEER
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE C. ABDUL KHUDDUS
R/AT VENKATAGIRI KOTE,
CHINTAMANI - 563 125.
... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. R. DEVDAS, PRL. GA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE


KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.26532/14 DATED 20/8/14 AND ETC.,
3

This writ appeal coming on for Orders this day, Ram Mohan
Reddy, J, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal by the petitioner in

W.P.26532/2014 rejecting the petition by order dated 20th

August 2014, of the learned single Judge is grounded on the

fact that during the year 2008, at the instance of the appellant,

the authority under the Karnataka SC & ST (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 granted permission to

alienate 2 acres of land in Sy.No.139 (old No.31) of Kasaba

Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, with a

condition that the appellant would have to purchase alternate

land for the said consideration and pursuant thereto, having

sold the land, appellant was unable to purchase the alternate

land, hence entitled, as a matter of right, to seek cancellation

of the order of the year 2008, permitting alienation.


4

2. The learned single Judge, in our considered opinion,

justifiably declined to accept the said plea, of a vested right to

have the order cancelled, on the premise that the order was

of the year 2008, pursuant to which, appellant admittedly

executed the conveyance deed and approached the Court

only during the year 2014, without explaining the delay, and

as no provision of law was pointed investing a right in the

appellant to seek to recall the order permitting alienation.

3. In this appeal too, learned counsel for the appellant

is unable to point out to any provision of law by which the

appellant is invested with a right, inlaw, to seek cancellation

of the order permitting alienation that too after the alienation.

We do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned

calling for interference.


5

4. In the circumstances the application to condone the

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal does not merit being

allowed.

Appeal along with I.A. is, stand rejected.

Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-
JUDGE

Ia/-

You might also like