High Court Karnataka High Court

Shahajahan vs The Commissioner Bangalore … on 29 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shahajahan vs The Commissioner Bangalore … on 29 January, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath
EN 'mg: HEGH <'3OUR'T' OF' K;ARNA'1'AKA AT §;é§i$zc§;b;:;§<:§i;z1&§;' 

DATED 'I'H£S '1m: 29% :)AYw<}§*% JAE\§iI2%.1";?}f_',.2{;i{}'<3  "  k

B E F 0   " '

mzae: ;~1<:z:~:%BLE: IvIR.J{fS"i'~E§3I33 m§z1kMz2;L1}2:;a<:'%Hkj

WEI'? 9Er1*r:0§JNo.?g;3§%[:;%F%%';2:ao§{:,§;;~éEs1

BETWEEN' :  'L

1 Sri SE--{éiHfi;gI£§BAII_A  .  A
S /()1.LA'.i'E. M 1A.BD'{}L'SALAM"'
Ac}E1j%..5é3 YEARS'  % " 
ZR/A.'NG._9, 5-in £3R{}SS,.
13E<xANGAj'HosTE:L'£2oAD
s;g.r~:AGA1;2*, ..BAN£§}'ALORE-2?.

2 _    N A.F§1'FV@ ARiI?' 
~  S]'O.LATE-'Ex/I _.____ABDUL SALAM
15;;-{3~P33I}...48 YEARS

  R1a.N,<3;9, 5TH (mass,

 ;'::'1e:xzAN3:'xA HOSTEL Rom
 S.R;§Sj§'£sf3AR, BAi~IGAL(')RE--i27
 %   PETETIONERS

  ray Séréé' T SBSHAGIRI RAG, ADVOCATE)

 '  THE COMMISSEONBR,

BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE? '

 W"



  

 A  %  T'mT1~3jjv§$R%;?r P]i%2'T1'i'1ON 15 F§'LE1{) mrbzsire AR'1'1CLE3S
=-2:245; '&-:22? {3ij?='..'i'HE: CC)NS'1'I'1'L%"E'IOI\3 012' EEDIA PRA'fl,N{}

  '~§fk%%::§i'§;L.f1':&E: <'.E(3U'E=Z"§f' MAQE THE F'QLL{)W£'NG:-

.-2"

? DEPUTY CCEIVIMISSIONER
BAN GALORE: MAHANAGARA PALIKEE

Bfi;NGALORE EAST
BAN GALORE.

3 Sri SHABIR AHMED A  
S/<).LA:v§«: GARlBU'1;L'AMUNSH1 A
11,.GE'}f).'?G YEARS *  
520.9, ma (moss  
DEVANGA r:<3s*r§:1.. R'.{3A['}-. j' V 
S.R.NAGAR, BAN-GALC)R§§33{,2'E"'{f  * 

4 Sri}{HAL I:§'E;LAH1iJ}'}§£}  %  I

S/o.G;.;w§3i:i'1_,L21 Z~!i;'i_3N::"§i»~§]f'  x 

AGED;éjfiES_       %
R/A.1NO.;:4..~?5¥);  g  

253% M Ba1A:»N%1,::;;%%30 B <:,§<03¢s...% 
?rHiLAi<J.%»;mc;.AR,.'E», % %
fBANGA:,<;5:Ee4T.1:._ %%& %  RESPGNDENTS

(By Sm':uf§g!1_§C,NV§%{§fi;S'}i§EE, HCGP, Fore R-2
Sri G.L.V1SB'$JANATI¥§, mvo"v'QuAg:a '"1"'I¥iE  GREEK £)i«':'Ti'E3i) 12.5.2006 ONE
PA'$SE1:>"E*.'Y'E2ESPONDENT 190.2 VIBE AE'~ENEXURE--E.

 PE'"i'i'i'i€;)N CiO?v*IfNG QN' FUR HEARING THJS

W



Csnimissianer, who by his erder dat.ed..~~~--l.2~.55i2():C5

cancelled and revoked the R11a1;ha in  fyf Tm:-it 

petitieners ami directacl the AsslgistamtRé:%§(e::€1t,1€:'(T1fiéé:_ti:>

take steps for recovery of »:§i!}_SS€SS§_§)fi 01" §7€1'€i'V{}:1'Opf3:i§TiZ}::'  " L.

qtzestiori Aggieved   ivvipetition is
filed.  Ak  %

3. Sr;   appearing
for the  iznpugtteé order is
bad    éiside. He contemied that
the   éfter iapse of 16 yaars from

'aha: date €53" cf:'I:t1jy._ (Si:-._1»§}:1~a{i;E;a in their name. That the jam:

  :*:é'Su1:)oa:*1r;"1c::.1A.1; hé{d""'1;(} autlmrity to pass the impugled

    of the decree passed by the trial Court

   order for restoration of the land in favour

 of t1'ie,V1§43spondent»Corporation is opposed to law.

W4"



4.

_ 5 _
4. i have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners. The 'respondents theugh se:i:fefi jl1aVe

remained absent.

5. The impugned 0e’d§:’;:Settie1%”¥»g
the name of the pe4ii;t_i0nefe. fecovery of
possessier; in :.’ee;5(;7%i_d;ent«Corporation
would per §eL€.?§. iZ¥?.?3.’:V.fi’esp0ndent shouid
have fiiirefiefring a petition before
hi121,:v’V’H1i1 é)i’e beyond 16 years fmm
the d%$.’i:e– entered ihte in the name of
the -pe’§:i£iLe1′:eife’.~V A V V

” respancient has misguided h2″.I11se3;f in

eezisirfuifig’ fihe erders passed by the Coufiss of law While

ngaeefiz-gg the impug:1ed order. The Zfld respondent faiieci
v i;e–eo11sider that the emit: for partiticm has since been

‘V erejeeted. The Fei;i.a1’1ce placed an the order passed in

{}.S.N0.’?{)4/196′? is of no relevance in cieciciing the

%/34″”