IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGAL.'C)'FiE,: ,
DATED THIS THE Tm DAY OF JULY, 2'£)§8V T; *
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
WRLE PE'I'I'I'ION uO.§34s.OOMgf LE gooezrgggfi; Mfg
MEHBUB SHARIFF SAHEB V
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,-" M j-
S]'() LATE ABO;;L«w'p.HAéAB,; R
R/AT NO.2?/ 1.,"--HI{§'ROAD, V,
THIMMAIAH 512039 'CF24()S'S,j--.._ " O *
BANGA1;QR¥,3'5Vi- "VO. _, ,
4. . " PETYFIDNER
(By S1'-i_ ; F mats AL; 8};-.1s)l'Li)AR SHIRALLL ADV )
.... --
KARNATAKA
. "BY :*i*s;s£tOR&rrARY (REVENUE)
S-.B_UjE=LDiNG,
BANGALORE.
V} " O. 2 * .TH}:%: DEPUTY COMMESSIONER (REVENUE)
. QANOALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
NR SQUARE,
BANGALORE.
3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB nmsxou,
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
BANGALORE. K
4 THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE.
BANGALORE.
(BY SR1. R mzvmss, AGA F0r<'1§"1..,& 3)"- '
(By M/S VISHWANATH A/S, ADV"-sf R R2 & 4"3J « %
THIS WRIT 1=E*rrr114: M FGR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B-"'(}Rf'S:--U "'£THi5_ADAY-'1'HE comm' MADE
M, «
The 'petitioner as set out in the
V. «_ V.t)'i'«1r:I;§__A\»srI'it petition is that the petitioner,
the "own,§r~% 'a___site measuring 30' X 40' carved out of
1and'*w%' 16, Periyar Nagar, Ward No.93,
Bangalore, purchased under a
VA Sale Deed dated 15-O3;-1962 havmg' been
V' a£;:quired by the 3"' respondent --~-- Assistant
‘4 Cammissioner without notice and handed over to the
Bangalore Mahanagara Palikc (for shcart ‘BMP1, the
ir’\
{;fRES9fifibEfiTS?g
rejection of the petitioner’s representation for _’
compensation or allotment of an alternate site}7by_ ‘
dated 26-02-2005 mmexme-“W, med i it
resulted in this petition to quash
mandamus to put the
formed in Sy.Ne.16 or inthe ezsite.
2. The peeeon Statement of
objections dated cotitenditig that the
petitioner ‘xe1’ox copies of documents,
laid a .the_ ” instance over a site in
v 1 tiiereefter claimed that it was a part of
16.,:_’w_itiio:1t producing the sanctioned plan of the
to support the claim’ , resu1t1n’ g in
the etidoifseinent dated 26-02-2005 A1mexure-”F”.
‘ It is apparent fmm the relative positions taken
T ” by: the parties that there is considerable dispute in
V dd regard te material facts and that the dispute is of such a
nature which camaot be conveniently adjudicated in this
M
Writ petition. It is a dispute which, it seemslio H
more appropriatc for ad_’rudication”b§”a.Q5mp¢t}:i:t_ Cimfi
Court and therefore, I decline [to in ”
Writ petition is accordi_fig3,y r¢§3;ervi:1g
liberty to the petitionef’ –ck¢_i’: isixfbemcdies in an
appropriate h