P Vincent S/O Late Henry P vs The Commissioner Bangalore … on 31 August, 2010

3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER(EAST)
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MAYO HALL
BANGALORE

4. SRI SUBBARAYAN
S/O VELLAPPA MUDALLAR

R./A No.9, 7?" CROSS, _
SWIMMING 19001:. EXTENSION _ 
MALLESWARAM,  
BANGALORE~»56O 003.

5. SR} SHANMUGA SUNbAtP_A1§rIS,_v 

S/O VEUAPPA MUDALmR_   V
R/A N09, 7%: CROSS,_ ' '

SWIMMING P{3oL;:SVE:§frEi~»;S:i)1\§    "

MALLESWARJ-Q1,' '-- ~ --   K .
BANGALORE§560:'QQ3. '_  

6. SM1'.KAST.URI."'~-  _ S
W/O I<_§<.UMAR-- _   '
R/A NO.28;S<__ * _ ' V
MAG-BATH ROAD .. 
BANQAL'ORE-560*--O.25'rm _

._ LA f7.'.,L'Sm2.RA1ESHWAR1
  W/O AV.:M.,_]AG;';DESHAN
'AGED A.BO¥.3?T[53 YEARS

Rx'A_NQ..537;  CROSS,
8?" MAIN, RPC LAYOUT

V  ABANG1-';ISD.RE.--.56G 049.

   PATEL MUNIKRISHNA
  'S/OLATE MUNI BYRAPPA
 V' ___AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

_,\J\_.

J'



9. SR1 MNARAYANASVVAMY
@ PATEL NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE MUNI BYRAPPA

10. SMT. THIMMAKKA
D/O LATE MUNI BYRAPPA
W/O SR1 MUDHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

ALL ARE R/A No.88/1, 1ST BLO(ZK',*a.  .
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.      
V    RESPONDENTS

(By M/S. ASHOK HARANAHAIL1 ASSTS --F~OR-R1 
SR1 A.IAGA1\7NATHA; 'SHE'1"'{f1',_'}&D'J: EOE: Pf4~6
SRI CHITF':_AP£*{A', IAIDV. EOE R7"    

SR1 H.1\&.CH_A.§\fE}B;;'§.G(3T§;'J_DA,ADV; FOR R8--10)

:'TH"IS"--V§£iRIT"7'fPETITION I"S'""E'II.EI) U/A 226 8: 227 OF
CONSIIIITLITION-" I'I'=T?]_3'IA'I3'vR1'xYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE
CONDITIONAL AORIjE_R%II9IEOSING THE CONDITION IN THE
ORDER 'AT * .AN1lo.53"7lllOUbl._ After hearing both the
parties KAT passed the irnpu'gnedv._order"'asl .}lnnexure--G dated
30.10.2006«appeal  aside the order of

BBMPl'dated KAT while allowing the appeal

declared that thepetitionelr is entitled to take up construction

 " .Worlt only lafter he sueeeeds before the civil courts about his title.

A  ._Th_ep aggrieved by this condition declaring that he

is not entitled to take up the construction work until he succeeds

~ AA 'oe'fore the c;:ivil- court is before this court in this writ petition,

ywx



2. Heard arguments on both the side and perused theentire

writ papers.

3. in so far as the title and possessioil  the 

question between the petitioner'  respondentczil'  is _:§r1ow 

pending before the civil court. *v.fo1"pt:he  to grant
appropriate interim orders  the parties and on
appreciating the   issue that was
pending  to the cancellation of
licenselin   KAT having found that

the cancellation of licence in favour of the petitioner was without

" V.  hearing__ihirn, rightlyallowed the appeal and set~aside the order of

  :BiBivEP"~da'te§di. 31.3.2006. The KAT has no jurisdiction to declare

that thepetitioiner is not entitled to take up the construction work

 xuntilihe succeeds before the competent civil court about his title.

 ltisfor the civil court to pass appropriate orders where the civil

H suits are pending between the petitioner and respondent no.4 to

2-)» "Mix"
..

7. The issue relating to construction of building an the property

in question and title in the property in question was..not_fth__e* issues

before the KAT. Therefore, the impugned asslit,

relates to declaring that the petitioner is_fnot entitled’ to”

construction work until he succeeds before the civil~._<_0:ourt*'about'- 0

his title is to be set~»aside..~

4. The”parties”are ltiberty to’.Woi?vklout their remedy

:_YsFor_sthe following order:

0 i)s 0 is hereby allowed.

A. irnpugned order dated 31.10.2006 in
Appeal No.53′?/2006 passed by the KAT as per
Annexure-G in so far as it relates to the
condition declaring that the petitioner is not
entitled to put up construction until he

succeeds before the civil court about his title

N.’

in