High Court Karnataka High Court

Shankar Narayan Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shankar Narayan Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
.1-

In rm: man counr or KARHATAKA,  T  

DATED THIS THE 3131; DAY:'JC5F:1f\ri.4.v.'£",_     

BEFORE V .
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEV'i§2.&M_MOH§$N 
WRIT PETITIQN  ;;.B.REs;[

BETWEEN
SHANKARNARAYA1'§_PATi1L g  
AGED ABOUTT3 YEARS;     .
'PARVA'I'I-II'       *
PLOT No.17f_:.,sz§'.(3m,I_2V:-:<:);'1_1- "  
MA1.AMARUTi--'H. ::;xrE;~esIo~N,* 
SHIVABASAYA N'A'I:3A..R; % ' ' ~ ._ " - »--. _
BELGAUMSQQ mo     

 .   PETITIONER

(By s;--; ': ~'r_BAe§AvA_'RA.1, )'e,.D§r. )

 =2  OvF"'I§}P;RNATAKA

1 REP. 'BY--1133 SECRETARY
*-.I)EPAE?TMENT OF URBAN AND
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
 M. 3../BUILDING
" =13ANGALoRE--1

.'   "TEIE COMMISSIONER

CORPGRATION OF THE
CITY OF BELGAUM

BELGAUM
. .. RESPON DENTS

(By Sn' :RAMESH BANNEPPANAVAR. AGN

M



.3...

23.3.2006, evident from the receipt Annexurc-H.  

was no response from the authozities,    ' 

addressed a letter dt. 7.5.2006  

to, has pitfcfled this petition. for  of  'V

'mash AImcxure~G and for a'  
respondents to allot tht~;.'sitc/'By:  Hiixnount

towards value of the natificatiaon
Anncxure-A agzeement in
Inspect of

2. for the petitioner,
perused ipetition and anncxures, there

can bx: no ammg that t1ae xioufica’ tion for anouncnt of site is

of 1988 the amount to be depositd,

igpplication for allotment, and not the value

of . far fetched for the petitioner to contend

‘vthat the givgthoxities must receive the value of the site as it

the ycar 1983 and to allot the sand’ site. The State

. . A’-G(A_’)V5c§l’6I1’A1IIlCI1’i having noficod irregula.rities in the allotment of

‘4 directed the authorities to cancel the aliotmcnts

pursuant to which the petitioner was ‘matted with a show

M

‘V ‘
1988 and therefore, the relief for a

man”daifius ie2i:g=at.e’sta:1d negated.

émdrdizzglf; injected.

” Ln.

.5…

by Courts, development charges, etc. It is in this A’ %
matter, this Court does not enter into an
rate or fix the rate of the sites @951′
Deveiopment Authorities. Thus? ‘V
contention of the petitioner

otherwise unsustainable,

4. A writ of which the
Petitioner is té-_ It is elsewhere
said that even: it is the discretion
of the C<éi1"1M{Vt"o: mandamus. In the

facts orthis. me, be done by directing the

2"' respoedenfaP,e1ppmtii9fi'df City of Bclgaum ho allot a site

the money value of the site m it

1;: xxiegesuxt, this writ petition is without merit and is

Sd/-_§
Iuégg