Smt.B.P.Pankaja W/O Sri Y B … vs The Commissioner on 25 June, 2009

0
55
Karnataka High Court
Smt.B.P.Pankaja W/O Sri Y B … vs The Commissioner on 25 June, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAKA AT BANGAL    

DATED THIS THE 25% DAY c.1F~a1.INE,'_'"    
BEFORE I '" "J 'x uV 
THE HON'£3LE MR. JUSTICE M'C) H-AN sr§;1,;n_I*rAI~:'A{}ti>;Um.;é

Writ Petition Ng.17232__c;t”‘2DG9 (Bf)R§~
BETWEEN V A ” V ”

SMT. B.P.PANKAJA    '
AGED 38 YEARS   -__  § 

w/0 SR: Y.B. NAGABH;u’s_HAN. %

R]A No.16, ::0TH e§:..:R(f;sS~”?’.’__ >
3&3 MAIN, NGEF Legvfotggfr

NRUPATHUn’€’GATVzQA<i€$R.' "
NAGARABAVIA – ' . " ' '-

BANGALORE «’« sv5o% 072′ – . PETITIQNER
% _ (B?’~s1_é1 a%pmagm, ADVQCATE}
A. …..

*rHE:v.C0§§I»:;s’s:0§i;’:.jé
8ANG;xL::xRE’913;~xz”E;L§:>PM2NT AGTHQRITY

V’ (::H0w*:;>A;IAH %;2a;a;::
£{U§viARAI4i5sRF; (wtgsn
_ -I3£gN€,}ALORE§ RES?()i\fDEN’F

{BY SR: W3. SHWAKUMAR, ADVGCATE}

– _ ‘I’i;iIS WR§’I’ PETITIGN IS FILES UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANS

T “22:?~.O..?rTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QIRECT ‘ME

‘_jv.._RE:’sP0NmENT TO EXTENE} THE BENEFIT op ‘i’HE GREEK

V-._P;A-ESSED BY ‘¥’HIS 1’~i0N’BLE COURT IN WP.No.630′?/07 D1′. 15.’-‘ms
VIIDE ANN-A, To THE PETITIONER.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FGR PRL. HEARING THIS
BAY, THE COURT MADE THE F()LLOW!N(}:

resp0ndeI1t«BDA is met issuing khata and _

ceriificams in resyect of him and other A f

5. This Court in w?.No.’e:3k3k7/200?, on”?

16.722008, observed thuszg. ..

“In the: circumstanéc-S, that
there is Stfit ;Qéiidizig”~ib@f§};I}{=: the Civil
Court 31:1 respect of
Sy-I§Cr-_1_7″ V V 7%} . étcres, excluding
the, si2:e:s} out of Sy.No.1’7
{}.”?$A]’, i’f}]¢VI’6 any impediment for
the res’pei:de3I;tsBAD;A’~.-{V0 issue khata and other

A “as. VV__$91;ght for by the petitioners
‘V ‘A ;’6t.l1€;i°..33}embers. Siflcti the dispute is only
acres of iarzd ir: Sy.No. 243, it is
:31? ‘V’L:§¥f;::§;;3»9nde11t to take positive action :0
V ié’§$;1é$§ifata anti Gther necemary certificates to
V’ ‘A :.:;§héf” fizembers in respect of the remaixzing
” *ey;tent of land, excapi: the disputed area, after
getting it earmarked with the help of

Surveyor”.

H’

6. As the: facts in this matter are similar to

WP.No.6387/2007, and as the order passed

petition has attained finaiity, the ordiéf}5 asse’r§

in WP.N0.63{)7/200′?’ enures t0_1:2″1c I) ene::”ii§ 0f

herein also.

Hence, the resent Tctiti<$}'1i~is."'dis .ed 0 in terms

of the order passed' by mnNo.53o7/2007,

disposed of onL%T15§}:%,2駧;:a.

Sd/-E
Judge

"bv:r

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *