« ANIM; V IN THE HIGH comm: OF KARKATAKA, ' RATE!) THIS THE am DA'§f"01?«.A?IIlIZ£_I. I BEFORE I THE I-ION'BLl-3 am. MORAN wan' PETITION r~:a,_ 1535:; I91?" @098 'gwwfimy BETWEEN sin R RANGARA-J3§N~_ I szo LATE RA;~:.OA:}3*azAM:r rwnuf * " AGED ABOUT' 5'?.VY35RS<-._;%«.._ I R/AT NO 746.A,iI.ST O§'<Oss~.'; .. " VINAYAK NAGAR, 1€;§Q.NE:qA._AOR-smaiza BANOALORE»17._--VV - " V 2 ...PE'1'I'l'IONER (By H R A§iAJ41§E'rHA1<;;é1sr-mgai MURTHY&ASS'I') » 1* 1. _ *rm:.séE~c1AL I.)E?U'i'Y COMMISSIONER " 'B5ré,OIx.LOR.E Dlsrrelcr ' 1..VITAsK'1v»§'OR«t:E, BANGALORE. 2 cO1éPO'i2AT1ON OF' THE CITY OF BANGALORE RERRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENTS
Itéy’ ssiaiz R DEVIDAS, AGA )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DT. 11.7.2008 UNDER THE ORIGINAL
OF ANNEXURE~E AND GRANT STAY ANNEXURE~E IN SO
FAR AS THE PETITIOR IS CONCERNED.
THIS P§.*°m’10N, comma ON FOR oRD§;i2s,.?ifI§i:S[ _’;
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLL§WIN(}..;… , j; J
0RDER,’ ‘V’v
The petitioner traces fifie. t9
measuring 30′ x 40’ in Sy. _uof Aggxahma,
Varthur hobli, HASB gut of 1-
15 acres which is said to owner
Chinnappa R¢dti3§,.,,,:. {he property in
favour of Roddy on
3.8.1959,” the same to various
pexsons i;i3.e : cfilcstion in favour of S.Y
sathyavgtfi 1.9%3’~4_+. ‘fine said Sathyavathi secured a
_ Adi1’v—1-95.1987 and enacted a residential
sold toonc KR Gopalon 28.10.1992
who . ‘1 V.’-iifinvcyed the property in favour of the
flVpet:it:ic;r1g-;13A,,1.i1″1(icr a mgistcred sale deed dated 4.12.1995.
“‘,Aé¢1ti§a,gV”to the petitioner, the said property beam HASB
No.746~A and new katha No.1456/746% of
“liéizcna Agrahara, Varthur hobli, HASB area, Bangalore
A. south. According to the pcfitioncr, the claim of the
respondent that the }and purchased by the petitions; in
Sy.No.60 of Konena Agrahara is emphatically ” V’
the further statement of the petzltioner he V’
perfected his fitle by adverse {
znade an application to the Stete”‘Qove;euznentVV
unauthorized construction is the
allegation of the peee¢::§§i~ . A iespondent has
addressed a letter.vdvated:.-i to the 2″‘
respondent -‘ fo”‘i9evoke the katha.
Hence, this the said order as
being violatitfe ” ‘éiit1;§%pzjn§’ig_;1cs or natural justice.
3; .. ‘exaivlninhafion the order impugned disclosed
I-‘i’:”‘:hatcou:: ifiV””W.Vp.31343/1995 directed the 1st
enquiries and ensuze that the tank bed
in ‘jzfionena Agrahara village is restored and to
‘take efiecfite measures in that regamd. Pursuant to which,
‘i9,h_e.,Zl:s@Htfrespondent having made enquiries, concluded that
.._ “the ;petitioner among others were in possession of the land
V V n °.ewl’:u’c.’o was a tank bed and accordingly, addressed a letter to
the 23*’ respondent-Corporation to take action in accorjdance
J,~a
with law to cancel the kathas made in favour
pcsltioner and others.
4. The very fiact that the COIf1Ifl?1I3jCa’§£iOI;.1 t;tiat7.&
the action mus’: be taken in accéztiééiicc –.Lav_v,”
petitioner mus’: await the deci»é.gi da:V of A!’:.i}c_ 2?3’§bv.V_1*é$;f§F.. interference at
the hands’ cf
The ;§m§fio£1._is.§:ccording1y rejected.
sdf…
Judge
psg