IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE OATEO THIS THE 4" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 BEFORE A THE HOi\E'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK 3. HINCH-E(,4§E.R1"E--E.::: . WRIT PETITION No.38268g20i.o_<;_(,!,,,B,;§_;i;»,i, 4' E» O A BETWEEN: C.Nagaraj, Aged 35 years, S/O Late Chikkamuniyappa, _ _ _ No.16"?/3, 'Lakshmi Venkateshwagra N_iiay.a' _ Channasandra Viliage, Kadugodi Post," 2 _ Bidarahalii Hobii, Banga'i'o_re East'Tai,uk',-jf._ » Bangaiore. ' A ' Petitioner (By Sri Viveka€n_and Advocates) AND: 1. The Bruhat Banga.iore"M_ah_a'na.gara Paiike, N.R.Square,.VBanpgaloiie. Repifesented by its' Commissioner. 21, "The"'Assistant.Executive Engineer, Bruhat -B_a'ngaiore Mahanagara Paiike, As~KadTugodVi'--W'arfiiiidahadevapura Range, Ma,hawdevap'.'u--ra',= Bangalore. Respondents
“{:By’§ri Subramanya. R, Advocate for
Ashokfiaranahaiii, Advocate General for R-1 & R~2)
“E”i”EfIVi1sE””v*’._rrit petition is fiied under Articies 226 and 227 of the
iV.”_’-..:COns_titut’ion of India praying to direct the respondents to refrain
~fi*o_n’i demoiishing the structure within the scheduie property;
anrietc’.
it ” This writ petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court made the foliowing:
QRDER
The prayers in the petition read as foiiows:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or anyjotheir’
appropriate writ or order” directing. ‘-
respondents to refrain frorri
structure within the schedule property, am ». 2 it
b) Issue any other appropriate writ,’or’ori:Ieri:orm
direction as deemed fit-“in:thewcircurnstances
of the case,
in the interest ofjustice: it h
2. The pra},’ers..§_ai9e.’§rirtuapi_iy.._inethe nature of an injunction
suit. The ‘giranhtabie in the proceedings
under Article of India.
3. $_r_i the learned counsei for the
pi’eftitioAne:v=’:c.j£;uhrnitsthatwithout issuing any notice and without
foI|ow_i_n”g the:due-“process of iaw, the respondents are trying to
:ii\A.Vo/pemoiish of the scheduie property retained by the
-iifpetitiioner and oiispossess the petitioner.
Subramanya. R, the iearned counsei for the
. ‘hirespoyncitents submits that the petitioner has encroached the
figfi
3
Rajakaluve portion and put up the construction thereon. If the
buildings illegally constructed on the Rajakaluve arenot
demolished, the storm water drain shail remain
endangering human safety, particularly when the
so contends Sri Suhramanya.
5. Whether the petitioner has e’nCi’oached..’:
Rajakaluve portion or not is a dispiite”d…questio_niofl’faAct._,”which I * it
do not propose to resolve in the proce.ed’i’ng’s–»ipnder’Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The ends be met by
my reserving the libe_rty,__ to the”p’eti.tio:n.er.vto«.:ai’vail of the suit
remedy. To petitioner during the
period of the date of the disposal of
this petitionand ‘t4’he_:’ciate’~ oAf’v.th”e;VdisposaI of the petitioner’s I.A.
forJfemporiairyaginjunctioln/stay to be filed in the anticipated suit,
thisV’Cou’rt_ to grant the effect of status-quo for a
Zifiperiod of’.two w.e’ei§sf The petitioner and the respondents shall
–i.l.rjnain’tain stamsi-quo for a period of two weeks or until the
the LA. for temporary injunction/stay in the
. ‘antlicilpated suit, whichever is earlier. Needless to observe that
fl_”‘ail.i__th’e contentions are kept open.
flgii.
6. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, nothing
survives for any consideration of Misc.W.9115/10 for vjae.?:fa§_iiii.g
stay. It is therefore dismissed as having become ~
7. No order as to costs.
MD