WP329 12 v. RANGA LORE DISTRICT

ORDER awandaterl ‘Nut Pet1tion 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 piovisions ot iuvnkng the 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 gettmg over certain ohservationsfduectious issued hy the irveitheiess has sought 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 ui thontacs and an oidn a hrii is lot adverse to the lwttniwr it .AIL 3 Pcjev, is the outer passed hr the appellate authont3 1%. s filed hi mu the apphcatiuns tbr imptea. finest tq ‘n If Ut the pit sent 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 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 espflnctent os. 7 nd S fljr mpeadmg ipphcations of

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 appeilate authonti partieulrrlv when he notice I that there s no scope tdr 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 petitioners. n V Suhha Rao learne I Senior (‘nunsel for respondent Nos, 7 and M as a1so Sn Vedamurthv, Cn,vernment Pleader learned 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 ‘omphcate which action nhile conid unnecessanly proceedings, also ainoimts to ilsurpirg th°3iinsdction 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 the purpose of iecnmnug then tegai 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 appellate authoniv ha? ain4e? Ahere ;ç the iespondent No I ‘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 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 )Q1j4 [copY at Anuex1n-L1J stand quashed retifloner Nos. 1 lie inter se rights as between the hyst lwtltioner 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 irstorflo i at tavom of legal heirs ot the ong nat grantee d ‘es flot arise m the present c ase W P3291 L04 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 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, An/ Lt 77 CflflT7