_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH come': on mauarum AT
pawn THIS THE 3&0 my or- MARC!-I. "
BEFORE .
was HOWBLE MR.Jus1*;éi '$3,. %'1?A<::j;[ ¥ " VT A
wnrr PETITION No.1Q6_o F'
BETWEEN: V A V "
3.. Sri. B.L.Shankarapp:-;i,~..V_
S/o. Late Sri. Lakshminayak, "
Aged about 58 years, A
RcsidingatBoorNo.1.1€?-.,_'=. V '»
LIG. K.H.B.,Co3o11.y,{Ph ' "
NcarR.M.pi_'Q:-garm-s;' ' _ "
JII'. Koppai, Ku'w:n;punagar, V '
MYSORE---.. ' ' .,
w/o:-.sra. Bv.L.s2:;ank, 'ppa, '
Aged about 48.yea'rs.
Residing at 33002". No. 1
LIC.» K.H. .CO3iDIiy, 43' Stage,
Near F<".M.P. Quattem,
- ' J/I". Kappa}, Kuveiiipunagar,
» " PETITIONERS
($37 Adv. for M] s. Vishwanath Assts.)
' about 37 years,
__ =C/.0." iyengafs 'I'iffcn Cemzna,
"Situated at 100 feet Road,
. _ --. "apposite to Lakshmi Talkies,
MYSORE, Rcsflng at NOJ978] 2,
" A Gectha Roast, Chamarajapurazn,
MYSORE - 570 004. R%POXDEK"I'
(By Sri Y. K.N:.-arayana Shanna, Adv. for C] R)
A "iv?.etitioners the plainfifis before the Trial. Court
injuiietion V. the respondent herein restraining the
«.._’iesponde:1tAiirom putfixig up any construction to the eastern side
pmperty which is allegedly reserved for public: use.
with the plaint they filed an applieatien seeking an order
Lof temporary injunction. The Trial Court ganted tempoxary
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 as ‘L22’?-‘.’§3f the
Constitution of India praying to quash the __ gdxdet -…_;iia:tec1%
18.10.2006 passed by the Lower Appeflate Cos1_i’t,VAPVrI; 4_
Judge (Sr. Dvn.) Mysore in allowing Ap}_3eal«,
No.92] 2004 filed by the xeepondent.-and. .thej:eby ivacatiizg. the ‘
interim order of temporaxy i11ju1:5ctio»1:;,j j;de:_te”d_’ =23’…i~1_.2();O4
ganted in favour of petitioners by the;T1’ia1″Cou1–‘t, V
Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Mysore in O.S.,rN’o.972′,’. 2004 u3:xierVAnne;xt1xe«”‘e
D and to dismiss the Misc. Appeal. etC;_ . .
This Petition coming on §{ee1’ing:§’B’ Group
this day, the Court made»t:11e”fO1]i)W§ng::.’ Vb
1. Petitioners” ‘V V judgment dated
18.10.2006 $.92/2004 by the learned
‘ whereby the order of
temporaxjgv. by the trial Court in
o.s.No,9’2’2/ 2604′ is set aside’;
They have filed the suit for permanent
injunction restraining the defendant — responéent herein from g
…..3…
putting up construction. The Lower Appellate
reversed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the
petition is filed.
3. The main gonad on which the
persuaded itself to interfere the A'”0r_derV 1 * L’
injunction granted by the eis ‘teat was
in existence at road to the allotted in
favour of the plaintiffs, subsequently
issued a formation of two sites
to the eastern I The two sites
formed. were .116/B. Both these sites were
allotted to said Niranjan has son these
pmpertirgsin. fa\}o1rrVVof gnesent respondent vide sale deed
Neitner the allotment made in favour of Sam
layout plan that was prepared has
been the plaintijfs –~ petitioners herein. The Lower
-. H has observed that under the provisions of
of the Karnataka Housing Board Act the Board may
. divert, discontinue the public use of or pennanenfly close
.,ee1y public street vested in it or any part thereof and therefore if
V by following the procedure pxescribed the Housing Boand had
diverted the public street and had formed two sites in Site
6/
.. 5 ..
the plaintiffs against the construcfion which is undgxfigkgn by
the defendant who is the purchaser finm the
It is not the gicvance of the petitioners that of
property is encroached. If at j;
mgaxding diversion of the public str'(:4étA::i:1to sitc;s1al};a:3’1.:i11¢aVfitL.
of the same, they could hafiaiaken Haéfion
accordance with law. Hcfncg, A is right
and justificd in vacat’i’nVAg temporaxy
injunction. Thgreféfiz, the Writ petition,
Sd/-»
Tu&g’e
the same is c1isIfiisse<1"""'C._ '
Pxs.