High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Anjum Benazir vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Anjum Benazir vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009
Author: H N Das
E w. §*.3440210u

N THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE»---;2,3""DAv OF NOVEMBER 2o09fl"V  

BEFORE

THE HON'BE_E MRJUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN     A
WRIT PETITION NO:344O2/2OO3V(L:BfTBN1p;5.Q'     

BETWEEN:

SMT ANJUM BENAZIR .
W/O SR: RIYAZ AHMED  1   .
AGED ABOUT 37 vEAR's,~  x_  ;
NO.51f3A-40, 13* CROSS R-OAO'; A
CHENGAIAH OOM1POuND;~«.."' " '
KRIsHNAPPA'GAR--DET»a:, A "
BANGALORE,  ~ jg _

 PETETIONER

(By Sri.B L1._:sANJ_'ETE?.\;_'-T Acfg) 

ND.



sT.{ATE~Or--" KARATATAKA
Ev '1TS'.SEf3RETAR"Y""

A j-REvENuED»ERARTMENT
A ",\11DAHVANA»sOuORA
. BANG'A.LD__R'£""

T'HECC)IvHTJ1iSSlONER
ERUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA

A .. F{AL|E<*E, N.R.sOuARE,
* _ BA_NGAi.ORE.

 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST)

A BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

SAM PTGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE.

aw/T 



 riO't*ioe tor{'Ré3'to R4.

2 \\--'.}'.3~$~"t»li2it'}St

4 ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HOMBEGOWDA SUB D|V1S!ON§
BYRASANDRA, BANGALORE.

(By Smt.ViJAYA, AGA FOR Rt &  in   Q 
M/s.ViSHWANATH & AssOciATEsFOR Ft2..TO._R4)  . A' * *

THiS WRIT PETiTiON FILED U_N_DEFt -ARTICLES 22s;& 227
OF THE CONSTWUTION oF~..,_iNoi.,«:x F'RAY!N£._3 TO CAt;'L FOR
REcORos FROM THE RESP.Oi\£_DENTj_Sv tN_"RES_PECT OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETiTiONER, Ere:    " F.

Ti-HS WRIT  .cO_iViiN§: i.ON' FOR PRELii\/HNARY
HEARING THiS :3Av;irRiE-'.cOuVR._TMVA~oETHE FOLi_OwiNe:--

Smt.VAijaya,_Addi_tG:over'n.rn'e'nt" Advocate is directed to take

notice tor -Rt. E\/t/s.\:/is'hiiv'anathAa.nd Associates are directed to take

A' 2    petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ

in the nature: otcertiorari to quash the notice dated t6,ti.2€)€)9 as

 AnrjexL£i'es - D issued by the 4%" respondent. In the impugned

‘_’_n_ot”icf,Ve}”ttie respondents contend that the property in occupation of

it :’_”t’h-e—–petitioner is a Governrnent land’ in this regard, a meeting is

me»

A

3 W’_P.3–i-102/(E9

catted on 23.11.2089 directing the petitioner to produce the retev-ant

records.

3. No pregudice wili be caused to the p.etiti..oiier he

attends the meeting and produce the neicessary. r’eco4rds_

disposai. The respondents to Vc’or;sider’._th’e stadt.e’n1ent 1 arid.’

documents to be produced by the petitiovtieriin acco’rda’r1’c.:§-= with law.

4. Learned counset ifortiithei’pett-ti(orte’rVLf:Li.rt’tiier contends that
already a survey of the’~property”i’n– idéteesticny ‘had ptace and if

that is so, the resr.1or’–2.der5t;jt:’d_t_o c~on«side_r the

5. Withiiti’ie_-Vyapove ojbisevvrvationythe writ petition is hereby

dispose of . A

it Smt.Vii’ay–a,: Addlfiovernment Advocate is permitted to

tile memo otvdappevazirance for R1 and M/s.Vishwanath and Associates

are”‘per’rm_tteVd to’i_vti_ie~iyai§aiath for R2 to R4 with two weeks from today.

sd/-2
JUDGE