High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Seetha A Bhandary vs The Deputy Commissioner Dk … on 15 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Seetha A Bhandary vs The Deputy Commissioner Dk … on 15 July, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
1 WP4683.G6

IN' THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAHGALE.-'*RE

DATED nus THE 15TH DAY or JULY, 2093'  Q
BEFORE:  " L' T' '

THE z-Iomsm MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLEHDRA  1'  

Writ Petition No.4683 of2006'1'K£.-Rj~R.3?/ ~«   

fletween:

1

SMT SEETHA A BHANDARYW 
W] O LERTE AETHAPPA BHANDAR"f_é
AGED ABOUT 67 YRS 7 '

SR1 AMARNATH BHANI3ARY_' _  ..
AGED ABOUT36 YRS"--~ ._  

S/O AITHAPPA BHANDARYV

SRI PUSHPAF<AJA_BHANDAE'Y    'V ~
AGED AEs%JT3f2'YRs'~'  _  ' 
s/0 A1THAPRA'i::HgxNI3A.;£§Y*'~..  ' ' '
R/AT caQwTA.RAM;~;NE'-..%'LA '_  
BIKKA.IRN:XigA*ri'a._  ' ' 

  

'«   []:3y   féao, Adv., for
, ' _I-i M Nataraj, Adv.,]

 .TF1F. 1:3TE::=>L3*1*1f co:vfi&"1'ssIoNER
» _E)A}{SHINA"KAN_NADA DISTRICT

'  ._ ' MANGAwREV"[. . V V 1..

 .

“r*§~_1f: TAH.S2%L;3AR

MANGALOFEE D.K.DIS’I’

V’ ::’:-:_E Rsavatwua INSPECTOR
VMANGALGRE D.K.DIST

;s:$)1’i’ MANJAYYA SHETFY

S/C) E3}-IAGI HENGSU

” ” “AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.1OC) 3020

PANTH NAGAR’ GHATKOPPER EAST
MUMBAI 400 075

PETITIONERS

3 WP4683.(}6

2. It is basically aggieved by the change of nziitation
enuj; and the afiirxning order of the Deputy
the present writ petition is filed seeking’

the same.

3. Submission of Ms. Sandhya R-aog.lea1’ned.:’C’oiznse1’foi*V.L

the petitioners is that the orders»haveV”eoii1e’-itoliibe passed

even Without notice topdtlie itucan cause

Fwblems 35 ‘I1? Detitio3®rSii..i who are in

possession may be disturbed

becauseuof the order as passed by
the and in revision by the Deputy
Comrnissioneriare to be quashed.

JLQV £3/’

4-{X .VVLeaI31e.:d”‘e_ounse1 for the petitioners also submitsian

atgplieatioiifj been prepared for recalling the earlier

Tphorcler dismissing the Writ petition as against respondent

A Xi_No{i5;~«_.t};1at the application will be filed and some time may

gamed for such purpose.

5. However, it is not in dispute that the parties,

particularly, respondents 4 and 5 along with certain other

5 WP4683. 66

possession etc., it is open to the parties :0 seek suitable

relief before the civil court itself.

7. In View of the matter being already befoxe’

court, there is no need for interfering in “w.I’it.i_i.’petiTiozi_¢

with the orders passed by the refiientie
ce-v~eL’C?*./ A’ ‘ ” 2

are only ifla-t-a.-llxtemporaiy a11d,1requé1fe’do to s

bring it in coI1formity with thexietermifiaigioiifi bjg the civil
Court. _i V V %

8. It is open to the 33iii’vs11e’_’..their remedies

before criviliu ‘ “i

9. F.’!i.t}:1o1it prejvudioe, {his Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

Judge