III THE HIGH cotxrrr or KARNATAKA,
mrmn Tms ms 2673 on or Jmm. I 1,: "
BEFORE
THE Horrnm am. JUSTICE -rgmijim-,_ ' _
wnrr PETITION xo.9o2s o1=?2967 '
BETWEEN
SR1 H K BHEEMARAJU .
s/0. KALLEGOWDA _ ._
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PROP LAKSHMI AUTO ELEcT1e1cALVVw0RKs'- '
SANTEPETE, (w§)R§{$H()iP LO§J§fLYINQ}~~AREA)
B.M.ROAD,HASS!§E%"._. _ ' _ ' ...PE'I'1TIONER
(By Sri {W3 " .
AND:
. 1 i'.HE C.i'Vl'Y MUNZCIPALITY
_ '"%*IASSAN;.'.DIST HASSAN
.RE»P_BYfMi?NICIPAL COMMISSIONER.
é= "?¥;'Hfi fispuiir COMMISSIONER
»-...HASSA_N'..-DISTRICF,
mssan. RESPONDENTS
: RAGHAVENDRA RAG, ADV FOR R1)
(ajrVs:s._(£.r. M C NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILES} UNDER ARTICLES 226
T ~ [‘A’N’D 22:? 0? THE CONSTFPUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
u ;BIRE<:'r THE RESPGNDENTS TO EXECUTE SALE mar: IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO HIS SITE AS
DESCRIBED AT SL.NO.27 AT ANNEXURE B AND ETC.
jg:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
SI.No.27, in the list enclosed to
the name of the petitioner, ejf a n
measuring 30′ x 15′ by the of
Rs.:300/– per sq. foot
the value to Rs.3e0/- es, boundaries
of the said tI1Ae:t’*?.t11e…:V.§ist respondent
though did not do so
despite V In addition,
that F§s.»9_,57t5/ over to the 1st respondent,
did not execute the Sale Deed
Government order dated 1 1-05-2006
V dd _ Annexulvg-“B*”.
” Although learned counsel for the 1st
” submits that the petitioner did not respond
fto various letters addreesed to him in the matter of
allotment of the site and execution of the Sale 13%,
M
nevertheless when asked to produce the ~ V.
that records are not made available. Leam
hastens to add that the petitioner
approach the 1st respo11dent_.t_o consitier ‘V L»
the petitioner establishes ‘he is’ same
person as the allottee,» atf£t no:flfiiesVvL’arould action
i11accordanceWitVh1aw._V_V_ [‘ ‘ 2 X
5″ _ of “‘staf:ement of objections
refutingfile eefitioner, there is no reason to
disbefieve me in the petition. If the
* ie.n.aHotiied–~the site, there can be no indolence
the 1st respondent in the matter of
by execution of the Sale Deed
receiving the sale consideration. If the 1st
respondent truly issued letters to the petitioner over the
iiallotalaent of the site, there was no reason as to why
‘ ethose records are not made available to the Court.
5
6. In the circumstances, there is no necessityépdto
direct the petitioner to approach the .
establish his identity to claim themsite a;ms:setmm.t ‘ to V
The petitioner has made out a case fo_r}sstie_ of
mandamus directing the 1st’d.res_pontient.t_od’ the
Sale Deed of the safid site _inoVVV:Ai1is”–.favoi1r,—of_.eonrse,
subject to the petitioner” of the value of
the said it A ” the other legal
req:_11re’ men1:s§’ _ ‘
7, % gwnjt péezign is ordered accordingly. If the
the 1st respondent forthwith,
the 1131; respondent is directed to
execube””%he«.’ of conveyance, in any event, within’ a
W sofa’ onemonth from today. 2 §
Sd/”
Judge
KS