High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniramaiah vs The Commissioner on 27 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniramaiah vs The Commissioner on 27 September, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri


:L

IN THE I-HGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BAKGAI./ORE
DATED THIS THE 27′?” DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2610

BEFORE

THE m:arrBLE MR. JUS”I’ICE Asnox B.

WRIT PETYPION No.so9o7%0z4~2o1{J ‘[LB’VQfE3 ‘1§rI?j’A. ”


 E

am HU 
Asnnaaomamium, 

sycmm    "   

sums Trmvappn, R}§:31I3I1'IG  L '    _

Hammw TJILLAGE,BAHGAI.{_>RE ‘ ._
anus (}ENERAI;P0’fifE}?’0F: %
A*r’noRNEY Hc>L;:>3R S.’s3HE£.AR”* A ‘V

syoa. SUR¥1%:NA§§AYA1iA_ %

RE’8ID1I_i_Q AT. EA’
mxmwrmflfisen M PETTFIGNER

& ADV2, FDR
SR1 3.sH1vAPRAs.m, .mv.,)

2 A. ….. .. V

uiwuvuhnm-un-

V1′ T ” vt§.c1~n}’xmas10nEE

mmmmm PALM,
A A ‘ mama omens
E!–iHL’2fi;LQRE-560001

3 1’32; cm? ENGINEER,

V “PROJECT N02, BEEP, 9TH FLOOR,
~U’1’ILIT”£’BUILDlING

H.G.ROAfi,

BANGALORE–56OC101

3 TKE ABSISTART CONSERVATGR OF FORE$’I’$,
PROJECT N03, Bfihli’,
9TH F’I.»%iR, U’I’ILfI’Y BUILIEIHG
hE,;G.RfiAI3,
BAHC?n&LGRE-560091 REf8PON})EN’Z'”S

(ravzsm LC}HI’I’H,ADV.,I«”C)R *

SRI:I(.R.!~”UT’l”E cmwm, ADWJ % u %

TI-I15 WRIT Plmmn 3 FILE!) UNDER AR’I’ICLE’ 225;

mm 227 :31-‘-* ma: uoxwsmvrrcn 9? mnmwrgnvmaym =
mam? mm RESPONTDEITPS . §3€.)HSIII§E’RV
REPRE8ER”I’A’I’ION GIVEN BY .. §’PE”IfITIGNER–..__ sag’
AN1TE:XE3’RE-P Hi AC-CORDARCE wrm LAW. ‘fHE?REAI~-TEE,”
mans NECESSARY nmxcrimgs Respanjgyzzrrai TC)
conmw THE ‘rrrLE (IF ‘l”fi1F2?”*E?’£)’T1’£’I0.HE1iS; A’HD'”AI..8C: ‘

HGT INTERFERE wmz THE pmcE:=’m, mssmsizcm ARI}
Enacmmrr 05* “gm $(.§§iEDU’LL–.§?ROPERTY.’

mm mmox iA%1~*’xgtfi9r’eq1ou1z£entsfo
aondder the imam given by the
pet£iwaerm’Anne2a¢re~PinacLaardm1ce’w:&h
Eaw. 1her’eeu’!er,£m¢ene::eammc£fire<:tio:.;sto
%zde21ts to confirm the titfie of the
HER

'3

pwtflionercuzdamnotinterferawithtke
peaaqmpammomwmmybyngmcyme
schsdaleprnperty. ..

my deemsfii umier the M

2. Heard Sri Vaandcv,

appearing for Sri f-:”.’1si”‘ géfitioner
and Sri Lohith, the for
Sri K.N.Putt§g;mrda.___

3, grievance is that his
repreaL§I1t.a.f.AiyiSi}.~_,’:’»-(::i1€stf,v¢C1 :.: 14.9.2910 (Annexure-P) has

remaizzeci

F’i’ft;ia ‘peiitian is dispesed sf with 3.

“tV.~.{j’:’tl1e rmpond-ants to ccmaider the

Vv .V pe€i¥’;i:§13Eeaf’s’.V’saaid repreaentaticxz in accordance with

as expediticmely as possible and in any

within an outer limit «of om: month from today.

HBH.

4

5. However, it ia made clear that the amend
part of prayer (a) is not grantable. If the petitioner

wants any declaratien in respect :1!’ the ~”c:>:

wants to seek injzmctivc reliaf, he

appmach the civil caurt by

smit.

6. Na crder mg to ma*;fig–

VG}?