Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O. Hanumantappa … vs Executive Officer, Shri. Renuka … on 18 December, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
                               1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
     DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

                           BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

      WRIT PETITION No. 111680 OF 2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Mallappa S/o Hanumantappa Antaknnavar
Age: 49 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Yellaman Gudda,
Savadatti, District: Belgaum - 591126
                                               ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. Shrikant T Patil and Rohit S Patil, Advocates)


AND

1.   Executive Officer,
     Shri. Renuka Yellamma Devastana
     Yellammangudda, Taluk : Savadatti
     District: Belgaum - 591126

2.   President
     Administrative Committee
     Shri. Renuka Yellamman Devastana
     Yellammangudda, Taluk : Savadatti,
     District: Belgaum - 591126
                                2

3.   The Deputy Commissioner
     Office of Deputy Commissioner
     Belgaum - 591126
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Sunil S Desai for Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2 Served
Smt. K.Vidyavathi, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
                               ---

      This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash public auction notice
dated Nill of November 2014 issued by respondent No. 1 vide
Annexure-J.

      This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed

to take notice on behalf of respondent no.3

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession

of the property in question and that the term, even according to

the respondents, would end on 1.4.2015.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit

that there is no intention to disturb or interfere with the
3

possession of the petitioner till 1.4.1015. The petitioner is at

liberty to participate in the auction that is proposed in respect of

the premises.

Recording the submission of the counsel for the

respondent that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the

possession of the premises, otherwise than under due process of

law, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

64 queries in 0.103 seconds.