High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Umrah Developers vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Umrah Developers vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 August, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
1N THE HIGH come': 0;? KARNATAKA AT 

DATES THIS THE 34TH DAY 0;? AUGUST if f  _

BEFORE % 

TI-«IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTEC3 A;'1'S..iBC)PAZ~§ifJ;§:" 

WRIT PETITION NO. 1sJ7%3§/2o09'i (Ifl,R§l§EjSv}»w  
BETW. EEN: %    ." % ;
M/S UMRAH DEVELOPEi? § _   V  AA = 
NC}. 22[]., MILLER TANK BU-ND ROAD,'  
KAVERIYAPPA LAYOUT  .  "  V'

BANGALORE -- 59..  V

REPT. BY ITS'_FRO'E?'R{_ETfi)R       
9 BABU@Y:§sm?       PETITIONER

(BY SRI::'--.V_R.E._IJ--BA E l"'~*:"'~.}AC-228;» 'PMAHESH, ADVS.)

AND :

1 THE.DE?U'r¥'CoMM1ss10NER

 'BAENGALOREV URBAN DESTRICE'

 " « _ Q 1<.;--m, BANGALORE



  OF-KARNATAKA
. *:3EPARfmENT or REVENUE
"~.M.$.' BIHLDING
BANGALORE»:

  " ' "THEi TAKASILDAR

"  EANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE  RESPONDENTS

(BY SR]: R B SA’I’§-iYANz%RAYANA SINGH, HOSP)

$ .

nu,

THIS WRIT PE’I’I”I’§ON IS FILED UMBER ARTICLESQ26
6:; 22′? OF’ THE CONSTYTUTZON OF INSIA, WITH A PR~.AY.€’I?._

TO: DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO REEIJND”K;’~JV.
AMOUNT OF’ RS. 42,50,o0o/- (RUPEES F’C_)R’_’I’Y”‘
LAKHS FIFFY THOUSAND ONLY) BEING THE 25% ()_”F’=.T’HE’
311:) AMOUNT AND THE DEPOSITED “av ‘§’H¥J3″‘PE'{‘ITIG.NE_R
IN RESPECT’ OF THE SCHEDULE LA.’ND,”‘BY :;o}}:sI’L”>.t«:R§r~:G
THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE :~PETi’P.iONER”‘ j1:3fr:<,~
15.4.2009 AN!) 4.5.2009 VIDE ANNEX-'E: AND'? "ID: "

WRIT PETITION. ..

This Writ Petition on far
haariug in ‘B’ gnup, this day,» L_t.he’-»L.Court”‘made the
followirlgz p

j– ….. »

g%..3 g._.§;;

Adiffjcafe to accept notice for
respondéntfi-._ they are served and
unrepre_sentéd.V” ‘

leziihe-d–« ‘counsel for the petitioner has

ificigice the order dated 23.06.2009 passed

it: ‘W,/2009, wherein the present petitioner

%TT”‘-..«.4 Was £1716; _ 1~ pefitianer therein. in simiiar set of

fififczfifistances, this Court has acceptad the csntention

‘ petitioner and his directed the respcmdemis to

consider the :’*epreseI1tat.,ioI2$ which were pe:1ding”‘as

indicated in the said petifion. Since the fac§s”-t;3c.:Lfj¢i:;_V”

and the facts herein are similar, a similar Qrdcfiréqiziresv’ ”

t0 be made.

3. Accordingly, the E)etii:iC’)x’IkEiV’-“Stkf’.{V.:I’FldS’ of in
similar terms as in W.i??:}F’$o’..»»and a flzrther
direction: is issued to éonsider and
dispose of §ié§t:§d”‘VVi5.04.2OO9 and
G4.05.2€}_O9_ ‘E’ and ‘F’ to the

petition. A

pe{.itiGI1’Vstands ciisposed of. No order as

“ta CQS{S ”

Sd/-

JUDGE

% –.A/,’;,§’i;1}’§’9b3′:*z1 sA*,