Sri Shankar Ramachandra Patil vs Karnataka Industrial Area … on 11 June, 2008

 

III was maxi mom or xuuwrnxs xr  

Dated this the 11th day 'df'Jz1z;¢-gl     
33530333'  1 TA    
1113 norm: ma.  
Writ Petitiog  H  ..£{}M--f{ ?Al5_B;)V

BETWEEN :

 

Sri Shankal'    2 

Age: 45ycan3_V    ., I _V  ff. ,

Doc: Buaixlcgss   b   

R/o  Nfiedi    

Post     
:)istrict_,Be1ga;u3::,_--     % I ...Petitioncr

' 'V " Ham' :3' 3  ' fndushifii 

Dev2:l;op:z;¢~.a.t  Beigaum

 by" its ;.

Deveiopmega.
Indtzstriai Esta-1fr:',j Belgatim _

 andalaoat

Plot No.'i,iBe3

% " 33 K. I{angax_ "ii Industrial Area
owl

Pi? R "

A   -- 590 010  Respqndent

[By Sn'_P V Chmdrasckhar, Advocate)

    This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the C-tmsfi '

tuuon of India, praying to quash the atrium' dame!

 

u/ 



 

3-1-3007 passed by the development oficcr  
     %

and the original is produced at.Arm¢xu.1vc- .

writ of ccrt1o:ran' 'AVquaahi;ngv:'£§nr;&$;;$;;r£;J%_.'  03.01.2007 by
which the    lease amt
dated  that  '
ofthc  

2. %  mammnmg firm writ paiifion on

 .J27.oa};:>ooif   my of disposmaaion.' «

3. %   of the pgu'uom' is that he ia in the

   ;mssn§"s.:s tiflmanhv % nfachi mng_ ' Tampa' -cum g wood and imam' g
V A _HcV.Nis running the business undcr the 12% and say}:
    1ndust1xs' '. In rim year 1990-91 on an application

 



 

being appmximatcly 50% of the value  4.   
Subaeqnenfly, the petitioncr has pm a   
Rs.9,431--0O and Rs.237~oo  

he has paid a sum of   phi?'

axecutcd on 24.04.1997'   of 11 ywrs
on an annual 1'cntVofRs.2f}_--§i)€!V, 7     hmded over on
17.04.1997  'cb;ainiag thc sancfion
F1811. he h&.~'§  H}: has also got power
 .   charges. A pmmancnt
mango;  been issued in h'm favour on

 

  4. X   pctitionerwas semd with the impugned order
  % %a;maoa;o1fi2m7 infomlixzg that his Lana has been cancelled.
V' _   made a mpzeaentafion bringing to their notice the

_ .    However. the same was not oonaidemd.
  .:TI:acreat'ter he filed a suit in ().S.No,236/O7. The auit oaxnc to

L'/.



   I paw the following order:

be  ' ' as net mam' mind)' 13. In those cafl 

5. The teamuz Counaqg foI' th e" f t

that whcn in pursuance of    him, m
industzriai site: has   he has
  and  on
buasntss.wit1§§t;t   without notice, the said
Iand  in violation. of mm ' of
natural jugficg.  tubmita that the impugned ozdar

% is tube  éj

_      the leamed Counsel for the respondent

— that respondent would give him notice in
hw and then Wonk! take appropriate action
of the tcnna of the base. Undmr the

V