Muneshwara Devasthana Trust (R) vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 11 November, 2008

xx was $193 counw or KAR§AIAKA, BANGALORE I

nawan THIS was 11mg may or movEMBaR,,2¢eé §f '

FRESENT

run HOR'BLE MS. JUSTICE nénaupa cH£iLn3V*5 n

ARE

THE HOK'BLE Mk. JUSTICE x,N.xE33Av3fiA§Ai§nA'

ccc.nQ,513/geaéwczvzn) "
BETWEEK V.\' ' *. .'a

Muneshwara Bevasthana Trusf'®
Jayanagar , Bamg;a.}.ore:--"S§0.:"O  V
Represented byki a Managihgafrfiateé;
smt.yasnoaammap*",.,x 3_ . a "W
Aged about'62fyéar$t"g5_V

W?o Late D.$hinaappa;."{alV:

. CQM@LAINANT

(By Sri Rgvi é géfiig Edy.)

 V'    A.   ..... .. V

.1 .m....--

 2i;'The"§é§fity"$mmissioner(Markets),

Eangaldréggahahagara Palike,
N.R,Squaxeg_5ampangirama Hagar,
sangazogemsae 002,

T, 4' Mr.Kriahna§pa (Pariod 2602)
~Tfi, {flaw Gowindaraju),
' féged,Maj9r.

', -Ml2;VShri.Rajanna,
"=_VAgéd Major
.,'fhe Assistant Revenue officer,
j'Banga1ore Mahanagara Palike,

Basavanagudi Range,
Bangal9xe--560 G04.



3. Shri. Prahalad,

Aged: Major,

Assistant Exaecutive Engineer,
Bangalere Miazaazzagara 9a.:L:Lke,
Basavanagudi Range, Bangalore.

Jf:§"A§c§ssa f«

This CCC is filed under ':$és»_pz11:. m violation of
the court order 4';-2908 "gassed in
MFA.Nc.14349/G7 vide_§nnexuxe§F,» ..*§.rz.__ V   ' 3:e$pondents=-ac¢used ware restrained

tegnra£:iy'§£¢m interfering with the §laintiff's

--V pea.s5ession and enjoyment of the suit

'A  property, fhis order came has be

_ ;éhéliénged in apgeaz i$e., MA-1434§f299? wherein

   crflmr: asf stay of the orders cf tzza trial csurt

 granting taworaxy injunction was staged for a



peried ef six weeks fram 28h2E2008H Appa;e§§:y,

$25.3: weeks came to and on 16.4.2008. 

af fact, the letter at Annexure--E dated 3:}3}2¢og", *

was returned to the Co::ce3>;'ned,_  V.?c$'lTic3;'e'  

Bangalexe Bruhat Mahanagara §"*z§,1 i§:e 3,jiiti1oi':i§i§' 

saying the order of stay"V"c.>f» 10.4V;'.'?f96'€:.V-I not
be executed. and the3e*..V_«'nee§d""t};:Vé: V f>:;';;te§&£i':5n'VVv<to gut
up the fence frdm 3: 3 ééca fip ffi gé g 2993. Tha
contentien q£-- the ;§§piai§a$:,_is3 subsequent ta

10.4.2008

,€- of the erder by

the re§spori_fid£;§’;i:-ga§J$h:>§é§;fies_; In support of their
contenfiiqn’, ‘ . ‘imire produced certain

photqgraphé; V_V§¢h;’,£:hA”v_ci£5″”.not indicate on what date

«.vthezéjé * §.x§ot9grzif>h3″””were taken and even in the

% do not say on what day exactly

t11i.s “V«c:oris%.V’§*;j:u§:tio:z was put zzp. As a. matter of

‘ fa.<:;t:; H contend that except putting any the

the raspandentwauthorities that the

belmzg to them rmthing else must have

bean done on the petitioz; sahedule property. On

" the other hand, when we look. at the photographs;

they seams to be outside the czonyazznd.
View of the matter, we do 124:-t find any good"-«'.__"

ground to mztextain the matter.

In that

Aczcordaxgly, the cmrplaint is “

§(VS*

.3

% %'    k