_ 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010'.-._
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J. GUNS}-AL' Q O
WRITPETIITION NOS.1628O-616281/A2iii1O:t?3[\i'i'+Pi?}<--'.i'.~ it
BETWEEN:
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited'~.._
Bangaiore complex
BangaEore--17 V.
Rep.by its -_ V.
Additional General Manager_(FMi~)..7'
Facilities Management Divisioin 1
M.R.Udaykuma,r.«_ I PETZITIONER
(By Sri:':S.V.SAna'$i'Vri.. nath K Advs., )
AND: _ ._ _ . . , _.
B.Mun'ibaChaop"a.. " "
* OS/oliateu..ahae:raia'h* ---------- M =
Aged 66 yeai"S._v
L_R;'at;'Nio';6_ E-
Ga'i*a_i4a:1:a'tanapaiya
3eeyanabh'ee{ts'anagara Post
Bani;-a|ov--re-35 .. RESPONDENT
:_i(By_Sri "t'.Seshagiri Rao, Adv.,)
.2.
'These writ petitions are fiied under Articies 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quasifthe
order passed in MA.No.79/2004, dated
fiie 1 Additionai City Civil & Sessions Judge, sangai§iej'e'it'i;--~it is
vide Annexure-K, etc.
These writ petitions coming for
hearing in B--Group, this ;_de tithe
followingzw
The pet.itifQ;n:er eVn_titieid'~>v2'tj0VVsucceed on a very
short poini',"Vin.aisrri'a'iLi.ch"ajs__Whi':i:'e"disp'osing of the appeal
filed application for
condonatio'n% of d.ei:ai,r"h~a:s'r«n~ot been considered.
'b"r"i«ef.....f~acts for disposal of these writ
L'p'e'titiQnS"cavnA:"be stated as follows:--
Petitidner herein ciaiming to be the owner of the
in question initiated proceedings under the
Ptibliiic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
,@
.
Q.)
,
Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act’).
3. The respondent entered appearance:.~a–h”gil~’:’f_iried”‘
his objections inter aiia contending that _t.h,e_j’pe’ti.t:io4neir’ l
is not the owner of the
encroachment to the .»e><t.entV7,_"dfV
Nevertheless, the Estate the
contentions of the treated the
respondent as 't;i':aoth:o'ri'she:d directed for
his eviction: on 9.8.2003.
The ap’pe’al_ the learned appeiiate
Judge on itais not in dispute that there is
fllOr€uV”ti’i’E3″H’4OO days in filing the appeal.
Rao, learned counsel for the
resp4ond,ent’:*.,s’t;ibmits that application under Section 5
the”Li_rnitation Act was filed. fl
///:”.””
_5p
delay, it is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as it stands
vitiated. Hence, the following order:–
Petitions are allowed, The impugn_e:d~«.:ortjeVri,_
so far as lVlA.No.79/2004, decitledwdré
quashed. The matter stancls-iijemitteld to
Judge for fresh disposal in The
learned appellate Judgeshall the application
for condonation of de’i’ay:]in”‘instance and
thereafter c:onisi’c:le’r”‘VVV’ti”:e appeal, on
Rule_ls_ issuletil’«a:_nd:T:’nade absolute to the extent
as i”<:a.tedu
Séfii
Juafi
_ ' '.''ek–,'!.1'l}:§m