M D Narayan vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2009

IN' THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY 01:' NOVEMBER ;v.v.ojD9_O~-V. _

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN. C1HIEEfJ1fsTIcEVE. " 'V 2

AND I
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUs'TICE   3
WRIT PETITION NO.18u§2.6' or 2D0--3;L_I;5B-Iig;»§1
BETWEEN   _ _   

1 M D NARAYAN   V
S/O L0KAsEVANI1?ATHA; _  V_ - 
M.S. DYAVE §3::::'v.rDA AGE: 7':2,_YRS----v
R/O NQ;"5'9/e0.'9'1T1.jre4A;N R'0A:)V_ »
 VTILAS EXTEB_ISIAON'g '

   

2 Y V sU'NDAI2J3:s1§iAN'~. " 
s/0 Y:VE1\?KA3'_ACHA1;AIAH
AGE:    
,, /oM.D. NARAYAN
   ..... 
.  _, 9115 MAEN. ROAD RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSEON
 _ BANGALORE: 80
 «   ...PE'1'ITIONERS

V ' _ {BY SR1 ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE}

'  1"; THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECY AND COMMISSIONER
HOUSING AN D URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT

 Jféfijlg
Z

ifij' "1



 _ HIGH :GROUNBS "  .
"BAN'GAI;ORE-- I

%\.J

VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 1

2 THE COMMISISONER

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE 2' T' ~

N.R. SQUARE
BANGALROE 2

3 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AL;TI~:1ORrifY "   '
SANKEY ROAD BLOCK XII   *  ' ..
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION 
BANGALORE 20 I  '-

BY ITS COMMISSIONER

4 BANGALORE URBAN ART"CO--MM"ISG'_"IONER
NO.10/4,KASTURBAROAI:)' : ~ '  
BANGALORE-I  " " "

BY ITS CIIAIRIVIAN {:pELE'rEB:'{Aio.IL ...I1.§.o7.2oo1}

S/O LATE  '  
AGE: 60 YRS, ' _ ' _  " 
R/O NO22, SR1, 'VETESHWARA LAYOUT

S /O' LATE}'S";K 
AGE; 60 YRS"  '

  . R/O No.22, CRESCEN T ROAD CROSS

SRIKANTEESHWARA LAYOUT

R  .I»IIG::I GROUNDS

  '*BAN_GALORE 1

  DINESH
.. " S/'O S.G. KRISHNAMURTHY

5;"



AGE: 36 YRS

NO. 680 BLOOM FIELD

VASANTH IVIAHAL ROAD NAZARBAD
MYSORE 10

3 S K SANJAY
S/O S.G. KRIHSNAMURTHY
AGE: 33 YRS
NO. 680, BLOOM FIELD
VASANTH MAHAL ROAD V
NAZARBAD  
MYSORE 570 010 '

9 .1EETENDRAvEER,AwAN1.«'""- 
EMEASSYBU11.D1NES-- . _ .   '
EMBASSY CHAMBERS,"   
NO. 30/2, VITTAL M.A1.L'{A ROAD   1, 3- "
BANGALORE1-._ '   

._ ~.~f. RESPONDENTS
[BY SR1 R.G.i:OLLE_, AOA  R21' I
SR1  AEv.*"EOR R-2
SR1 :5: KR1S1aNA, ADV, FQR. R-3
SR1 UADAYAVHCI;LA;»A'I}1(.'F'QR R-5 TOR--9)

'If_HIS_WI§IT' P_E'I'I'£'1ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 3;

I "227  OONSTTTUTTON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASI-I THE
'BU1I;D«1NE,TAOENEE AND SANCTIONED PLANS DATED 21.5.99

ViDE'ANN';A".<3RANTED BY THE R2 3: ETC.

 PETITION IS COMING UP FOR FINAL HEARING

  AATEIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING»

. W'\
\

,/" "4

Q{'\.,W,«*"~\



JUDGMENT

{Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, C.J.] ~

No representation on behalf of the petitioners. . it

2. Heard the Government for
the respondents. l I A T A

3. Though the .pi’etitioners .above “;l:>etition have
challenged the sanction oi on the original

title deed vtheljj.Rectiiication Deed dated

23.10.19E39’rprovides*ffo«r ctionlof high rnulti dwelling units.

in the’ matter, the contention raised by

the petitioner’ challlenging sanction of the building fails.

lllat it is also brought to our notice that the

Ill’:-1,1lllCll1’V1g already been constructed’ in accordance with law:

sanct.i_on pianfiand also Completion Certificate has been issued by

the eornpetent authority v1’z., the Corporation and also the same

:3 – ‘

have been aliotted to the occupants and that they are also put in

possession.

6. In View of the above, nothing’:.:mst1’r{IiVe«s*’»jttavr

consideration. The petition stands dismissed , ht
f
Chiefiustiee

Index: Yes/No.’AtA” N u
Web Hosti..AYes/N0 *