High Court Karnataka High Court

N K Keshava Murthy vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy on 7 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N K Keshava Murthy vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy on 7 September, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
*  W.  WWW W Wmmmmm mm agmfim" ma mmmmm mm Qibfififi?

l'.NTI'IE HIGH COURT' €315' KARHATAKA, 

DATED 13-33 THE am my 012' .

BEFORE

'rr~mHoN*aL2    A
wpmxesm Q1?  % 3 %

BETWEEN

:1 K xmiava  
AGED ABCJUI' 6? grams,   V   X  
310 mm nu: IY.Ei'€<;}AR,  
NC).2,1?T3 c:r'e<::ss,% _ 
J.P.HAG£*.B;1-6TH;;_PHASE«§.  
BA1€('4x{&L®,€E_'5fi0 offs , ; %
           mmzozmm
(By  1=z%e.m;sfi.k Abv.)
1   srma 0? mrmarmm
j "BY I'I'S"3_ECRETAI?Y

"  EE'JEmIE' 3E?Am~mzr§,
M.3.B!JII.DII'IG

%  %  T 'I)R..&B;mEDKA1{' vmnm
 A' -B.§%.¥§€§£§.-LRE msmxcr;
-  BANGALORE 560609

Vk  3 '£ImA8S'1'C(3MMIS8I<Z)NER&LAO

BAKGALORE SGJ'I'ItI 8UB DIVISIGH,
BAHGALDRE 569 009

5% §o#fH~"%§IL.§ iflhwkmmmnwmm »s.--. .».-.-n-- -



WWW Wm fiwvmfiifi W mxmmmm §~§zW mmm W mwmmm WW afimm

BY rrs C 
cnowmmn ROAI3,
KUMARA PARK WE$T'
BANGALORE 560 020

4 TIE BANGALQRE m:v3LomEH'r 

5 BRUHAT BANGALORE    

BY ITS COIeMISSIOB'ER.
N.R.SQUARE,  %  
BANGALCJI~?E560OG2    é

 .  ~  §;--...'RESPfJN1')EN'I'S

(By S1-i:M. I(ESIiAV.P;i~4EE'l3}§3E": :F§:»R'R1 ----3,
SR] K. I<I2IS}£fifi;--M2)V, 5:31; R-:4', k %
SR1 K.:H«.'  R-~5}

arms; WifE1'E*"E?E,TrII_QrmEHTs NOT TO DEMGLISH
ETH-1ER__'QI€v--«._PAR1' 01? THE sr.:1~mwLE
momm <3WHf__£~I3' BY"='»£'Em 1:-mmonm.

 ¥?.'?'1*itv_V'13e:.t:iti§1: £.§§m'm on for
  day, the Court made tlm

ORDER

THm§fi§mfi®nkfibdaedifiadkw&nm firm

V _v mt ta dmfiah the pr:-nmzy helorgirg fin
pmmnw eompriaaci 5:; Site No.2, Khata 119.14/1
EW so a:., RS 30 as sinzahed at saxakla-aim

vimge, mtaralmm Habli, B%m South. Tahxk.

%_

?iEa$@§?nu% Wfiwfiffifilhfimlflfik mam. kunmanm ..

WWW W mmmmmm wxewé mum” W sammmm “:;4’¢?m«¢ mm’:

2. The appreltminn of tha pe:fitr2or:m* is the
oficers {sf the fifth mspondmmt are “to
am mm mm aeneauxe property and
the property at} as to
ef widening the road
W.P.No.7639/% arm fiataed 22:»
August 2007 fnf the Bangalore
mwmmem: harem to am

the mag}? l in me achedulc
property fmtifixzatian issued by the

%24.o3”.§%ar;x§ secuaan 4(1) read with Section

{if Act and also an the strength

i af madc by the Gamma} appearing for

Sf.’a.’5§v._.«Gava:’ rnment that it had an fixtmzticn to

% the propoaad aequzamon, diaposecl of firm
balding that the proposal fin’ acquiring Elm ii

pmperty havizg ham given up, the: petitiemr

was entitled ta succeed.

f6″

MWEH Wvwxwmsumu um». mm»

3. In that hac@*oux1d, the nofifmafion
thmein undar secmn. 4(1) of the Land
came to be quashm. The: order passed
the earlier writ petiitfwr: is pmdxzaeaag i
tha appruhemion of the
authori5wa imiudim tbs
Pafike are Iikaly the
mad and rasortim to
demalition bexongszg to rm

35.41 W. W WWWWW mm WW” W mmnmmm iwmw mum” @§= mwmmm WWW WW:

In mtg passed by this Court

vicle ma oanstmctrxi

uix1V.’fii:eV: ____1a;t1d heknrying in her withnut
.._pubEc mad at dreams um ma
arbitrarily restart to fienzolition vf’
Vfitifsh the aapprelmemian acfzrmsed by

V * ?n that the autfmrifies am ‘ac:
the bumm eomtructed by heat. memrm it as
elm tltmt if the property bebnging m the
petitionw 13 mquireé for public purpoac: far wfienitzg cf

mad er for wzmmxcting drainage, the auttmritima have

J5

Ié…M2F’9aE£Jfi mumamvfiumnmuwmns m a.

. .. IWUWW ….Wm Wmmmm mam m;.:«m’ar W MWMMA Maw mam’?

ta prmead in aceordanae. with law and no dwmfitien

can be rwortaed to without following due Law.

It is alas: made char, if the auflmfitiéfi Of»:
respmdentfimhat . $
the view that pctitienexfi

fictm-ea oba1a11c$m “oi-”
draw… it will spat: to issue
notice in such of ax:tm’ 11 to clear

such abamtuiiéwns and reaaonable

‘ flrfia writ petition is

….. Sd/..

FUDGE

Mmam wwwwwmwmm M… MIW-‘N