IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA'-fr" A "
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GXILBAFECM % V
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L;.:NARA.S"r'A?§Aw~S§V§1'%§§fV'V "
DATES THIS THE e;e;'1%:§ DA?x"'{)'I.?'.I{'K;3E?rIJSTé§3G08V
W.P.NC).'F57fé]V2.OO6V({}}'§E-Qf'C1'V. _"_'_.
BEFWEEN: ____ H
Chandrashekar _ "
S/0 Siddanagouda..Pati1_.» _
Aged about 4G"yea1?$;:' "fl: _
Occr: Doctor, }2esir3eIi't«"<jvf.__!*4'.G;'€)_§Qolany
Jewargi Road} ' V . .
Guibarga. '
. . . Petitioner.
(By. i'~3.17_i "I€ai-1-mite, Adv.)
AND:*., % Ak
' 1 , V The ..';3 t:3'I:eV
By itS'4..Sea:T(ét--uy to Government,
' ' {Ethan Davalepment Authority,
% " » « 4%: .F}.oor,"M.S.Bui1ding, '
_ }:)1*.AHi?:redkar Veecihi,
" Ba:1ga}€)re«560 00 1.
"'}'he}Assistanf Director of Land Records,
- 'City Survey Office,
Vikas Bhavan,
Guibarga.
3. Mahesh Kumar,
S / oflasavaraj Sombaé
Aged abqut 25 years,
Occ: Student, 9
RM xfagat, Gulbarga. "
4. The Commissioner,
City Corporatizm,
Gulbarga. -
5. Sheshaglri Rae, __ ._ 5 _ " .. .
S/0 Bhimfienrao Lat14JI"k,?3J.' _ } _
Repi By his (}?A holder"S,wS..1?ab1ishetty: ._
Age 52 3'eaI'5: ' V I
R/0 SangaraeS'§).wz.=r:;Nagar,
Braf1I:£1I31l¥"3 ~ " %
Guibargai. -:j__
. . Respendents.
(By Sri IvIa1'};i}=;a1j1,111a. B; F%3f,?»2é§}{:t::i;'at«*ii;)r R3
Sri P.S.M2iii,pati1 1'9: 84
Sri Subhash Maflapur, ECG? for R1 81. R2)
Tm pgtitiezfis filed under Articies 226 and 227 61'
the {3o'i:sfi't.1,1fiQ§2 cf India, praying 1:0 quash the impugned
erdézj 'tit .f§;:1;fit:x2;I.t*e" I) passed. by if Additional Civil Judge
*-A._.v,(Sr.Di:} 'at (3~11i53i*ga, in ().S.No.238/2003 cn:.10.3.2006 and
iiartilefthis' I:~Io1i'bIe Court may be pieased to allow the saié
_ _f'_f._a;.p{;ii1;i'pV tfiis day, 1:316 court made thfi f011owi1:1g:-
ORDER
The prayer made in this petition is to qtzeeh
passed on IA No.6 filed under Order». ‘fg)uI*’ ‘ .
impleading State of Karnataka, Refiresefited
Gevemment, Urban Develop1I1e1:1fit~V..Autf£eIjit§!,VV VBa§zga;ie1’e
Assistant Director of Land .Records’§}1fi~barga” ae..d.efendants 4
and 5.
2. f’I’l”1e bi’ the:”case “are that severe} suits were
flied ag3.i1:1’S1:”‘t11e and inmnction was
sought fQr_ agaiizst’ the;-:§–. eefi<5:r1ien its part Qufing the pendency
'.-
:_’j'<5f–the eiiite–eeevera1V' persons also filed applieatiens for
Deveiopment Azlthority, Bangaiere and the
— ‘heive Eejeeted against which writ petitions were
‘flied befo1*eVV_i_9he High Court of Kamataka, Bangalore.
V’ .. AA 3; Leerrzed counsel for second responclent piaceé a
jaagmt rendered by the High Court: in similar
. V _ eiifeéimstances wherein the action of rejecting the ixnpieading
Ni
applications have been uphelsd by virtue of
by the Apex Court in Surya Dev R;~;i'”\;’s«R::;n’i,«%Ci;a;éaér.%Ra: L
2:303 AIR Saw 3872. Both. the szi’b:;£1;£f., V’
prayer made in the writ petitiefi is::Cc}Verc§dVi:§y of ‘
the High Court In View .91′ thc””s{::bx§fiis$iofi’S’ ‘Inac(:ie by the
parties, this petition is alse ‘I4e_.ji=3<:1':¢:{i;
Learned is"'p§3fifiitt.ed to» file memo
of appearance f0r.R£é§g§0n€1enis' ifiqgl aénd 2.
Sd/-
%%%%% Judge