..i..
IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA, "
DATED THIS THE 13th I)A:§."'OI?.APRII% 2.f)13f'.9VV' "
BEF()RE X__ T
THE HON'I:3LE MR.JUS'§ICJ4§"RAMhVhMQ}iAb¥ 1é§i:;t)DY
wrm' PETFFION ~..No. ¢vi'54'.i_§34,[';£{)Q8 (i;B;U(§)
BETWEEN:
GSMAHA9EV.A§AH~. 4 I
s/0 LATE sAL3As§TiivAppA'i. 4% "
AGE:48 '-
GONIPURAV1LL~A;§3E ' . _
K.G.HA.LLi'(1>QS?n KE?JGER'I- HOBL:
BANGALORE 's»:~.»ui1jH.TAJ,U1{ _ '
BANGALOR'E--55006Q "
PETITION ER
(By gr: {AN '19' "PREMNATH, "ADV )
'.-uualt an
A %m.a:& 1§2s:i%U'rY COMMISSIONER
' BANGAE.»t3RE URBAN DIS'I'RIC'I'
BANGALORE.
2 _ 'I.'i-{E TALUK EXECUTIVE GFFICEI-2
V V ' BANGAL€)RE SOUTH TALUK
" JBANGALORE.
% THE SECRETARY
K.G9LLAHALLi VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE. } Rfl
xi
-2"
4 G S BASAVARAJ S/O LATE SHIVANNA ' "
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ;
GONIPURA VILLAGE "
K.G.HALLi{P{)S'I') KENGERI HOST; A. '
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ' '
BANOA1..ORE--56OO6o. '
AGEB ABOUT 52, Y~s3;ARs=""' = U. '
GONIPURA v1LI..AGE"_ '_
K.G.HALLI(P()S'I'} KENGERi"HOE3L§f_'=.V
BANGALORE sOUfPH..TALUIs;»V.U ' "
BANGALQE2E-"$60960.
5 G s RENUKAIAH S/O LATE*:{HiyANNA«- . I
' .' " .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: R }#.OA'5f_' .1 f)"
THIS WRIT PETl'I'I{_)N._I_S FELED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 22-?' OF 'I'H§3f'C§O?+JVS}'_IfI'LFf1'ION OF iNDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT "':fI4I§§ 'R2' #0 "-RETUOVE THE UNAUTHORIZED
CONSTRUCTION BiJ_ILT T_."§ .5POR'1'ION OF' SURVEY No.77 OF
OONLPURA GRAMIVILLAGE KENGERI HOBL1, BANGALORE
sorry}; "'i'Q. BANGALORE BEING A GOVI'. LAND as
V' °'INDi'€3A'i7ED'"' As PULIC 'WAY [NAKASE DARE] IN THE
'-JIVLLAGE 'MA?'~-5;, SURVEY SKETCH AS PER ANN--B 85 C 85
'T-ALSO i3_IfR13.<:*r;'<r{I;i.E R1 AND ETC.
=.T«'OLLO:.i_.§_1:i;O:
WRIT PEFITION COMING ON FOR
PRLJEEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE} THE.
ORDER
‘I’he petitioner claiming to be a resident Of
” wC}Onipura village alleging that the 1st respO11dent-
fieputy Commissioner, by communication (11: 25.9.2007
Annexuxt-:–A, issued to the 29*’ respondentfifaluka
,3 ‘:J\
-3-
Executive Officer, to remove the encroachments
bearing Sy.No.77, belonging to the State;
respondents 4 and 5, having not met V
results, has presented this petition’ for’. of; V
mandamus directing the 2’14 to .
unauthorised construction.
2. The Deputy Commissieiier’s-.come:ttiI1ieattion dt.
a direcfion to the 12ml
respondetyt; the petitioner to persuade the
1st resp0fide*t1t’to tneasuxes to enforce the order
V. “e§Tect.i*veIy notmftlsh to this court invoking Article
of India for a writ of mandamus.
A The ‘wdxfitdpetition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-I
Judge