I IN THE HIGH comm: or" KARNATAKA, Bmmmrm DATED THIS 'HE 0513 DAY or AB'GUS'IfV.2_€'§Vl:3V'9H44HI"~V: A-. N BEFORE THE HONBL1} ma. JUSTICE
wnrr PETITION NO. 22532 A(2.~1i’L2oo9¢.H%% Hm ,’ H
Mi? WAJID KHAN @ MEGHANIG EjABU~.f AA
S/O IBRAHIM KHAN, H .
AGE 41 YEARS . ‘
WORK 311(1)? H
SANTHEPET_ iS’;T ”
B M RQAD, H’ASSANi.4 _
. % …PE’I’I’I’I€)NER
(By M/S : Aésdcmras )
AND” .;_ix ”
1 ‘T ‘*1*H1z+:”s?:’A’:I’E.oF KARNATAKA
B? r’1fS\sE;CRETARY
A A VURBA’Pé1._D’EVEL0PMEb?T DEPARTMENT
VIFJHANA SOUDHA
B.AN;.GALORE-560001
% 57 I “THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
V ‘ ‘ -A HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN
cm’ MUNICIPAL COUNSEL
HASSAN, I-IASSAN DISTFEICI’
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
iii
4 SR! BHEEMARAJU
s/0 KALLEGOWDA,
AGE 40 YRS
SANTHEPET, B M ROAD
HASSAN . %
(By Sri: R DEVDAS, AGA ) %
THIS w.P. FILED PRAYING To -Q[}ASH~.THE ORDER
DTD 11.05.2006 IN oRt>1<:R' ISSUED BY" "THE: R1
vim: ANNEX-H AND ALSO' THE .L1s*r–_'PRE1f§AREB BY THE
R3 VIBE ANNEX–H1 ONLY; so–MR 1.;xs";I.T'V1_RELATEs T0
SL.NC). 27 'I'() 'rHE._w.P. AND V.
THIS PETITION. €30M11fm4Qr;..F01ePRLJ-IEARING,
THIS DAY MADE '1fg~1r::"F'<3I;.I.ow1z~I(3 :
II_1_(iisp'ii'tab13r,_ 'ofie,=. Biiimaraju was the lessee of an
.i1;du$£ria}._.AV:shcd éfit 99137 sheds at Hassan, falling within
of the then Hassan Municlpah' 'ty
coiififiiiiltefi the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
'.'I.'h<: r§§s9Iii§i<$ifis dated 10.12.77 and 01.4.98 of the then
hfiunicipality to convey the immoveahk: pmperty in
fxissession of the lessees in the indusuiai area was
%…k%%appmvea by the State Gavt. in its order dated 11.5.06
Anncxure H) subject to certain conditions. The: name of
M.
this
Bhimaraju is shcswn at SI.No.2’7 in the list of lessees
Annexune H1. Thus Bhixnaxaju, even H
petitioner, is entitled to the benefit of the oxder’A«’,_:A13ne:&nie».v.v_f H
H.
2. It is the case of the “»,r§§m::on;§i~
Rs.40,00()/-, in cash, tethe year
1991 and was put in shed and
ever since then, of car
repairing,» “n’3e- niafier, the petitioner
must entifled to the benefits of
the Govt. Ofdef in place of Bhirnaxaju. Hence,
2 VvIVn’h_”_’thei;,.”encumstanees, the contention of the
V .pefitiener be accepted as it would be inappropriate,
since the petitioner’s right has not been
in the form of any court orders or decree. The
‘T sf Bhimaraju to secure the benefits of Govt. Order
“Annexum A cannot be efliaced at the instance of the
bk
petitioner who claims to have paidsmmamju Rs4o,ooe;f %, ‘
to be put in possession of the property. The civii ” Z
Bhimaregu canmt be put to an
contentions advanced by the
I/’
‘rheéwzitpea;’ao”
~: f%~”=.W3udge
csg