Sri. Anjinappa rep by No. 3, as their Spl GP Holder and Others vs Deputy Commissioner and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—An extent of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 28/A of Angatta village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapura Taluk, was originally granted in favour of Munishamappa S/o. Thippa. Petitioners 1 & 2 herein claim to be his grandchildren. Petitioners 3 to 5 herein claim to be the sons of the said late Munishamappa. The 4th respondent who is also the son of late Munishamappa, as averred in the writ petition, filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short the ''Act'') seeking restoration and resumption of the land granted in favour of late Munishamappa.

The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 08.02.2010 allowing the said application and directing restoration of the land. This order was challenged by the 6th respondent before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. In the result, it transpires that the land stood resumed to the State Government and is ordered to be restored in favour of the 4th respondent who is none other than the son of the original grantee - late Munishamappa.

The grievance made in this writ petition is, that the Assistant Commissioner has not taken note of the relevant documents pertaining to the grant, before ordering the resumption and restoration.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to avoid any future complication and to set right the matter, petitioners have taken steps to challenge this order, so that the Assistant Commissioner may pass an order after considering the relevant documents and also after hearing the petitioners.

I do not find any substance in the grievance made by the petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner has passed an order in favour of the grantee. As the petitioners claim right under the grantee, they cannot be permitted to challenge this order on the ground of some discrepancy in the order. It is for them to work out their remedy regarding title and possession of the property by proceeding against the 4th respondent, if there is any dispute in that regard. No case is made out warranting interference with the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, while dismissing this writ petition, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to agitate their rights over the land before the appropriate authority. Ordered accordingly.