IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNA'1'AKA, A.
DATED THIS THE 1 mi DAY OF
BEF'ORE'-A A _ % _
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'1'1_iL*£; RAM
WRIT PETITION No. 9fz<i?'vo;i?.F20o3 {LB-1:533)
1 ARMUGA'M..VVj'--
S/<2»
AGE:-'3 A30_U'I"=:38 YE,g12S,,;
:2 Mumzsfixrgnfiifi " %
'S/O. .LA'I'E .SADA'IYAN_ %
AGED ABOUT» .5v'.yr.A1igs
3 VAI;i,A_iAHVV' "
, -- S10. LATE 'MANl'*lANAGA'{"I'I
~ .5339 ABOU.'.l.7_.5? YEARS
*%1 "~AvRE!!I_U{}'¢1\9Ev _
.s;*o LAA'I'E~ MANANGATFI
~ AGED Agscmr 57 YEARS
V L' 5 €:HA§ A
AGE¢3I}..A_B'(Z§UT"i2§3._YE_ARfS.
ALL ARE regsiplrw .A'i'.._.
9TH CROSS ROAE) " "
KUVEMPUPIAGAR _ .
CHAENAPATNAA -« '57 1 1
PETITIONERS
(i3y"sAI2v.ij.' ~t1f IARAVRASH, ADV)
AND :
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
.__ BY ITS SECRETARY
DIFWARTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING
' VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 550 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICI'
VISHESHWARAIAH TOWER 'K
PODIUM BLOCK
VIDHANA VEEDHE
BANGALORE --- 560 00 1.
3 THE COMMISSIONER A .2
cm' MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHANNAPATNA 571 501 ._ '
BANGALORE RURAL Diw-RICI'. " '
4 THE DEPUTY sUPER1N3f.E.3§iOEN!r O1:?POL.:O££
CHANNAPA'I"I'NA__5TT1 5.01_
BANGALORE RUR:";L-DI--S_'vf"R'ICF' j 1
5 CHIKKATHAYAM?' ' O
W/O. Tm:v;,1y':AIA::i g A
AGED.ABGiJET_60 :Y_EA_RS._» 1; V
R/M' NO';".:23/"20 -
QTH A Ofieees KLIVEMPBTIQAGAR
CH2X?JN}xPAT?§"'N.A"?OWN
}3ANGALQRE"E?U'f$AL.._DISTRICT.
fl ' _ .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: ié; )
~THISVWf§I}I'O"PET1'i'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
A *AN"::> 22"?' OHTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING T0
'QUASH_'i'~'HE "NOTICE D1'. 22.6.2008 ISSUED BY 'me R3
V..fi!.REC.'§'i'NG THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 12, VIDE ANNEXURE3
ATOM HEREIN TO VACATE THE HUTS.
..'I'"iV<£'VIS4':PE'I'1'I'ION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS pm THE COURT MADE THE
. 11-OL;,Ow1NO:
ORDER
The petitioners claiming to be the hument dwell-:13 in
possession and enjoyment of certain properties having
M
on 9*” cross, Kuvempunagar,
town, Ramanagar District as expeditioueiywi A’
possfilc and in a manner known to late i
respondents No.1 and ‘ii
assistance that the Iespozzitient. A’
for caflying out this Clilectiont Iii?-“:3751C**iA.itient’1–< i
No.3 shall begin the V» –.V_.;ir<)cess.V'of
encroachment by
encmachers on notieef'
3. It is ‘the aflegtition that not being
parties .noi_aii:tion’ for eviction could be
‘–againS€f:’tiiezn”ianG hence seek modification of the
order by Writ jurisdiction under
A11} ‘of the tion.
_ petition apparently is not maintainabie
es instance, the petitioners have already exerted
their by instituting a civil suit pending before the
A f_” eonipetent court of law for pennanent injunction restraining
the ‘City Municipal Council from evicting ‘them from the
Viinremises in question. Having fiailed to secure an order of
Temporary Injunction, cannot give a cause for the petitioners
§L”K
to rush to this court on the basis of the notiees
Secondly, the petitioners ifaggrievedhy t2;§”§%;aa;ér’ ciated 3:4 V’ a
April, 2008 in W.P.355()/ 2007
the petitioners to seek pf of V L’
invoking the Writ juxisdjction h’ ‘= . Even
otherwise, the fact V Petitioners are
encmachers or not is a “\i§.;r}1ic11 cannot be
decided in be no doubt that
the cffgted 25.6.2008 issued to
the H puxsuant to the direction
//;’co1:a,Vfai;1ed in mi1.3.o4.2o0s in WP 3550/ 2007,
Annexure – “i’J’V_, idecljire interfere in the matter.
V Vwéfifiipefition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/–
Judge
csg