WP329 12M4 IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 8ANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JANUARY 2006 WEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE DY. SHYLENDRA KUMAR PETITION No32912 20 Sc ST’ Between: LIAr’PA AtiL I1 GED AEX trr o YFARL AA4A XX /0 MUNIA PPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS “ 2Z1LJ1ifLf\i WI C LATE VE NUGuPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 3P YEARS Xi TO XX ARE R/A TUBARAHALLI vILiAL. NAMA000NDANA RAW POST. RANGALORE 66 4 T M RADIIU JA LkLt1 A 1’ r’ rT T ‘J A tIrir’ REP BY (IRA Ht )LDER P MLOKESH. 5/0 C M MALLAIAiX ) A A AT/ (, I IT’I 1’ r)( L31I \f\JJI HLiAIAH BLOCK. GANGANAGAR NORTH BANGALORICXX’ (By M/ s. (1. Jau-aj Pssociats & Vamthi. Ac1vsJ And: ‘Irr )T ‘TA r - L flAl1L1 1’i1ti RANGA LORE DISTRICT X ThE A- ISTANT COMEI1SSIOt4ER I3ANGA LORE NORTH SUB DIVISION PoDiUM BLOCK. V V. TOWER lU !‘AU’ AL) JIAI _‘1 L lL)l 1’ lL)’rLJ RiNCALOyiz I WP’1291$ 04 TUL TAHEHi OAR K I’LIRA HURL JANGALORE EAST TALUE JANGALORE 4 THE SPECIAL tm AIl°ILPAR P K PJRA HOBO Af&AIURF EAST TALON ‘SANGALURS THE REVENUE INSPECTOR VARTHUR (IRE LI. K It PUrZA HURL! PANGA LORE EAST TALl ‘K “ANUALK R! GIL VILLAGE ACCOIJNTANT ‘SAMAGUNUANA HALL! GRANA RANCHAVATII. K P. PUPA HCULI PANUALORE EAS’ TAI UK BA NGA LURE SAMPANGAMMA S/ ‘U U NAGARAJU. MAJOR S RHAGIRATHI S//C) C JYOTIIAIA!!. MAJOR CT & RE ARE. VIATTI T PARA HALL! URALIA RAMAGOUNUANAtiL1! ‘l’OSTI VARTIITER PUPIL I2ANLALURL FLU EEc t ’AR( JAMMA ‘A’f’) II 5 RAMAIAR MAJOR PWVAT [AMMA 5//f’ 5 NARAYANAPA, MA. R S I t.J’flTfA,JKt., 5//C) H.P. MUNIVAPPA, MAJOR 50 1’ [1’’ ARE 1/A N 12! L MAUI’ AIGH U’S ‘AlGA K! A ‘t’ A fl fl r ‘7t-. 3nI’axnj2.ini— .‘ 1 .. NARAYANAM 1 AA 5/ 5) ir NI A T ASWA Ay MA) P C/AT MAKANE!IALLI IL ‘SEC PE TALON )A 4u! ‘A flt I fflA I t Ic’fl’flfr’V J11 ,‘ or.&r’ ti&IP.I’. ‘.‘.‘f\fllj ‘ik_. I WP32°1204 1R Sn T 1< Veclammth. 1JC(,P tnt RI to R6 Sn. K Subba Pact Si, Counsel fbi Mis, DPP Babu , Associates, Adv.. tol RI & Rh, Sti 1P. Vivckananda. Adv,, for P9 to P12] ‘ 1 ins ivnt petition is bled under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to mash the impugned ordei it 27-2-2004 passed In RI vide Anict and etc.., [‘his Wnt Petthon ommg on toi Heanng. this day, the Court made the follois mg. - ORDER ‘Nut Pet 1 tion 1w a person who was a grantee of agncultuial land tta hark in the yeas 1961 and as a person belonging to scheduled caste coiumnnltv who had transfrrred such land in violation of the terms of the grant and which ‘Tansa( hon was eight to jr awandaterl iuvnkng the piovisions ot the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled rihe [VT’CLJ Art, 1978 for short The Art awl whn though had Silt ceeded nt 4 offl heh,tr thc Assistant (*oniinissloner hut also hetore the Peputi Cojnmissonei in the appeal prefrrred hx the pilirdaser -mel m te’pe t fl a inch ‘‘rders this court had snsed the trnt petition No, 178t2/2004 in terms of the order dated 20-1 1-2005 hat irveitheiess has sought thr ge t mg over certain ohservationsfduectious issued hy the 1• WP$2’)2.O4 appellate authonly-the fle’putv Commissione - in dv COUr’t of passing the nidri lafrd ‘7 ‘-2004 (rnp at Anac3ae..Fj c 5ejeuj’,e the .ab. nations are to the efti”rt that the n%enhlr entnls in ‘espc t of t it subject bind should ilsi ix tide the warn. ‘. c fit spniwlent Nc s ‘ and ‘3 Ut tins wilt ‘. tits,Ti i’ nt pt-tition ut this iiatine animally is tot nut wbrli is ,equutcl to be crammed by tins court, partiruiarlv at the instiài e of a rar abc, has “unniled belnrc the na-er uithontacs and an oidn a hrii is lot adverse to the lwttniwr it .AIL 3 Pcjev, is the outer passed hr the appellate authont3 mu the apphcatiuns tbr imptea.finest filed hi the pit sent tq ‘n If Ut 1%. s 7 intl S has resulted an the revenue takmg rue at this outer tor the psupose of etfrrting •nai.grs in the ievenue iecouis not oak trw in ‘lndmg the a.imes ci these I’sp)ndeuts an the revenue irronis a’ uxlrated ‘ii the mntatni register extract Ic y at 4nnexmr 9 hut also ‘Ti issuing the endontmtnt dated .-S-20O4 frop’ at nit ‘tine J. In the Sin ml Talitidar Rangalore Fast Tahiti the petitirnen have n.j pzoachni thi’ court praying toT quashing at both Annexures a F & .1 an the pwmie ffiM their V WP[VQi Oa t’ntnes/ endorsemi nt has come nato existem c solely hsased nu the order of the Spe naT Denim (‘nmmissloner rT ited 27 ? 2o04 a” it Annexiuc I I where under the 4ecal I )epiity t -)mruisstoner hail al1oiecl fljr mpeadmg ipphcations of espflnctent os. 7 nd S 4. The giievauce of the petitioners is that the appellate authuntv should not have entertained such impleadmg applications in a pending appeal hePne Turn under sec non A of the Act hx persons who claimed as legal hens or as persons under the trst pt titioner Mumappa the grantee. 5. V appears while the respondent Nos 7 and S iaim to he daughteis ot said Mnniappa, theie is some dispute ahont it am’ ngst the parties hut what is more important is that it was -e, an issue which was rcpured to he considered h the appeilate authonti partieulrrlv when he notice I that there s no scope t dr xHminaton of any question of legal heirs as the yew grantee is alive and s a partY to the praceechngr and having been hrcught in record as a legal heir 4 his son T Nt Venugnpakaswam who had uittetecl the proeeedmgs before the %stetnut I oinmlssioner my application in the st:ti’s of a egtii lit-u 01 legaL representative of such a person who was alive WP329 12.04 oiiid nut he maintained dnrmg the htetirne of the gianter h mselt The appiehensiun of the petttinners is that the revenue urrw s fl iilrl °ause misehiet to the tfetnnent of the petitioners mu coucl cause nIt or usslc imongst he memheis of the tdnnh cit I have heani Ms Varntha learned counsel for the petitioners. n V Suhha Rao learne I Senior (‘nunsel for respondent Nos, 7 and M as a 1 so Sn Vedamurthv, learned Cn,vernment Pleader It is definitely not the function of the appellate authonlv under section A of the Act to enihark mon tin unnecessary qi urv arid to add unnecessan paflies to the pending appeal which action nhile conid unnecessanly ‘omphcate the proceedings, also ainoimts to ilsurpirg th°3 iinsdction of wii orrts, Chtre was no scope for entertainmg such an apphcation as hew i’ no oc asion to permit an} person to conic )fl w ord us ‘egal heir assuming that respondent Nos 7 and P had lamiect in their status as daughters. it heing a matter ivhcli has t e examnich liv a civil court for the purpose of iecnmnug then t egai status vs avis the grantee and thereafter so decline their iigHt’ ioidet the relevant stainton V WP3?91° 94 provisions and not liv the aiithonties Lhnctionmg or even the revenue anthonnes tuneflonn imder the Varnataka hand Revenue 4 t, 1964, It is br this reason the portion of the order Ahere ;ç the iespondent No I appellate authoniv ha? ain4e? ‘hr irnpleadirent appheatrus ci respondent Nt—s ,‘ and 8 ilid onsequential action pursuant to the impleadmg of respondent Nos 7 intl 8 as parties to the appeal pndmg oebore him is set aside 8 The revenue entries based on this onier in tavoin of present respondent Nos 7 and $ 15 ilso set aside and the land being required to he restituted in the name of the onginal grantee himseltç the revenue entries should show only this position and n-it any other positton, ‘eveniit entries hearing No 28/2003M4 dated 29Ri—2004 [copx at Annexaired9 and udorsernert hearing No RRT(1l CR 17)0/ ‘OO’hOi date] ‘8 )Q 1 j4 [copY at Anuex1n-L1J stand quashed 1 lie inter se rights as between the hyst lwtltioner retifloner Nos. to 3 and re-pourtent Nos 7 and 8 are ill matters 141 irh can he examined oily hr the CiVil court and rot jY either the mevrn’me authorities or is required to he examnied is an issue in the pmoceedmgs uniter the \t as the juestion of WV W P3291 L04 irstorflo i at tavom of legal heirs ot the ong nat grantee d ‘es flot arise m the present c ase m pjwtr, js it s nhutitted dv Sri Snbha Pan. learned Scni a ‘ounsel “ppe wing icr respondent Nos 7 ana 8 that these respondents have already instituted a civil suit ni OS No. tO iii QCQ and the said tilt IS pending hetcire the (Jtv Ctvil Judge at Bangalore. it i open to these respondents to pnrsne their suit for seekmg snch relief to which they are entitled to in law hetore tht ‘vii confl, 11 However, the revenue entries as ot now to remain in the ‘iam of the first petitioner — the original grantee awl if there is a determinahon or redetenninanon of the rights (it respondent Nos 7 and 8 vis Avis tint petitioner in the tivil suit to thst evtent the revenue entries shall have to he hnaight in onic runtr with the determination hr the wil curt 1 2 Rule issued and made absolute lfl Writ l’etitlcn allowed to tIn extent q dicated shove, Lt 77 CflflT7 An/