Loading...

P.N.Varadaraju Since Dead By Lrs vs Additional Commissioner on 2 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
P.N.Varadaraju Since Dead By Lrs vs Additional Commissioner on 2 August, 2010
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT EAEIOALORE

DATED THIS THE 02% DAY OE AUGIJSE 7   
EEEOEE

THE HONBLE MR. IUSTICE :.D.A3-V  L

BETVVEEN:

P.N.VARADAR_AIU .. 
SINCE DEAD BYLRS   E ji-

1(a) sELVAiEAm  ~ "

AGED'ABO"Utr'   K A
S/Q*IA'X,'f}£fA5P.E\§'gaZ'tRADPERATU"'w~-- 

1(5) Sm: Li'  V
AGED ABOUT 49YEAE3
D/O L&TE'P.N.VA1?ADARAIU

 -  %  DA1<sm}i:  ---------- ~ "

AGED AEOU1" 47 YEARS

V  A' T_ " ' D{_C)_ _P_;_N1VARADARAIU

 1A(,c__'1')' Sn 

" AGED" ABOUT 44 YEARS
-S';'Q_ LATE P.N.VARADARAIU

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
s/O LATE P.N.vAEADARAIU

':\j\.

J

W.P.No. 2357gg'2{)9g_(O;.B4E1*.§]1?)%% 



ALL ARE RESIDING AT
No.30, 2"" MAIN ROAD,
31"' CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA,
MYSORE ROAD,

BANGALORE -- 560 026.

(By Sri. HMAREGOVVDA, AD\[:.,)'

AND:

1.

ADDITIONAL COE\/iM_iS--SIQ?\$E};§:.  'é  "
BANGALOREEAST,     
BANGALORE 'MAHAN1A;GAR'pAL1KE' ._ « '- "
MAYOI-IAL}_',;}3;f%NG_ALQR.E:. - " ' 
THE .A::s1s_I"A;N*1* 'REV1€.;iwE OEFICER

  " 
BANGALCJRE 1\/.EA}L_ O " AG-AR PALIKE
BANG.ALoR13.'fi"'-._'      O

Smt   VA XTHI  S O

W./Q LATBSATHYANARAYANA
~ '~:A<§$D g§BOU"1" 71_..YEARS

' ~ s;n:.4P.%:)1-fiic-AI.AKsHM1

 D/0I:;ATE.'sA'T1~IYANARAYANA

O' X  "AGED Agdw 47 YEARS

SfivVPf1 S}mA

V " =  _S/OHOLATE SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

Sri CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

M

/"



RESPONDENT 3 TO 6 ARE

R/AT No.1, CHINNASWAMY MUDALIAR
ROAD, TASKER TOWN,

BANGALORE – 560 m1.

Sri RGOPALAKRISHNA MURTHT-K’

S/O LATE SREERAMULU ‘ ~
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS ‘V

R/AT No.8, CHINNASWAMi7_vi$/KJDAIALER A

ROAD, TASKER TOWN,
BANGALORE -560 00:’.

Smt P.MA}1A1AKsHMA1.\_irMA.. _
W/O LATE P.SREERAM–U_L’U ‘ 1. A ”

AGED ABOUT 6-9    "
Smt   "  .-
D/OALTATE   
AGED ARc;)U1"  YEARS 

10. Sri 'SUB? A  ~  

s/O LATE R. sREEP.AMi;LU

AGED ABOUT60 

V’ R-é’%frO’%’ i’O__ARE RA:-AT

13″.

V’ T ‘V vN¢;.1D_0A,44~, IHAMBUCHETTYPALYA ROAD,
‘.__RA1xIc:_;A_LO’RE — 560 005.

sx’1=R.’WENRTAcRA1APATHY
S’/O LATE P. SREERAMULU

., ‘D = _AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
= . _,R/AT No.13, ARMSTRONG ROAD,

BANGALORE — 560 001.

12. Sr’: P.LAKSHMB\$ARAYANA
S/O LATE P. SREERAMULU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT No.6, CHINNASVVAMY MUDALIAR
ROAD, TASKER TOWN,
BANGALORE — 560 001.

13. Sun; PAPARNA
W/O PRABHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

14.P.SHRU”THI
D/O PRABHAKAR ._ .

AGED ABOUT.20YEARSv._f. ‘

15.P.sA1sA3.AN _
s/0 PRABH_m<:A'R . _ V'
AGEDDABQU'f«1.1:9Y£_AP_SV" "

R–13TO ¥'5'ARE1<?ZA_TASHREE"— ' '
vENKArEsHwARAj.iNe.'53/3;.

14'"! CROSS, 4'"? MA1N,.c'H§;:~qNAPPA
GARDEN, IAYAMAHAI; EXTENSION,

_____

RESPONDENTS

._(EySri'i;G~;§ACIiCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R1 3: 2

Sri H,R;ANANTHA KRISHNAMSRTHY, ADV,

FOR R3 M1 5 )

Vv'I"HIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED U/A 226 3: 227 OF

fiw.

“CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYB.\?G TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
“EORDER PASSED BY THE £1 DT.22.06.2()09 VIBE –A
. ETC.

This petition coming on for final hearing this day, th.eic.ot1~r_t

made the following;

In this writ petition the petitionerthas prayed for a

the nature of certiorari to quash theppiiorder date-dd per
Annexure–A passed by the E125? lresploindent setting aside the Khata
in the name of the petitioners and directitigv tdenter the name of

respondents no.H33_to _. .

2.,iiIn Vthef:~v_iInpiigned’~,i_order at Annexure–A, the first

respondentiset?a.sidev.theiAorder_s:idated 18.1.2006 and 1.3.2006 said

to have ‘been pasisediibyi the second respondent. Both the

hpctitioners ‘a.nd._t’he respondents have not produced the orders

passedihy fheis’s¢_§;m§d respondent on 18.1.2006 and 1.3.2006. The

records ‘are’:. secured from the Office of the Respondent —-

ii :Ba_ngaio.re Mahanagara Pahke and on perusal of the records, it is

6 that no such orders passed by the Asst. Revenue Officer on

i i V 18.1.2006 and 1.3.2006 are avaiiable. Further it is seen from the

r–1″”

/.

impugned order that the second respondent transferred t4heVii<;hat_a

in the name of the petitioners without hearing the."£espAoi1d'ents~— ~

and also without considering the objections–filed–l_'byl_thernr .ilIn–ithe7.&

circumstances, the first respondent ought have re,manded'=.'the 22

matter to the second respondent forxfrlesh disposalin aevoordance
with law after providing an.4_oppor–tun§ityl to bothp the parties.

3. Learned’f}oi5nsei=__for -t~he”«p:é’ti:tion_ers submit that the
respondent 1\/l{3phanla;garai”i3alike_- beiidireeted to furnish copies of

certain orders. liLlibe.rty<i,s ieserfszed to the petitioners to apply and

to obtain theeopies iofhoiderspltlhey want in according with law.

22 " . V in the reasons stated above the following order:

1 __ petition is hereby allowed.
The impugned order at Annexure–A dated
22.6.2009 passed by the first respondent is

hereby quashed.

iii) The matter is remanded to the

respondent for fresh disposal in

with law and after pyofidi-ngéaig

to both the parties.

DKB

Leave a Comment

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information