High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K M Nagaraja vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 13 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri K M Nagaraja vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 13 April, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
1

IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA,  .

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY or  "   "

BEFORE   

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  '

wnrr PETITION No. 1585990?   "
BETWEEN    V'

SR1 K M NAGARAJA   .
s/0 K M MUNISWAMY   '  '
HINDU, MAJOR V . _ _  V    
R/AT N0 '(N3 REDILH }1Q':JsE" "  " 
VINAYAK NAG-AR'       '
KONENA AGRAHAEA 
BANGALC)R.,E1~_ 560  A. 
I ~ ':.  PE'I'i'I'I()NER

(By E R AxNANTHAi{RiVSi=Jf\3A.:M! I=R'I'HY&sASS'1')

AND 2

 '~  -'T:F~§E---$FECiA1;V{)'E}"UTY COMMISSIONER

A ~ ..xB.«.N£3A1,oRE DISTRICT
 _'I'ASI{_P'ORCE", BANGALORE.

2 7 ,Ct>R15::{i'4:" _ eflon OF' THE CITY OF' BANGALORE
'REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
..   RESPONBENTS

  {}3yis:=§,...; R' DEVDAS, AGA )

 ;l'i-ES WRIT PETITION {S FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

 AM)? 2:27 OF' THE CONSFITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING "PO
 "QUASH THE ORDER mt 11.7.2008 UNDER THE ORIGINAL
  <31? ANNEXURE43 AND GRANT STAY. d\



THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL 

THIS BAY THE COURT MADE THE' FOLLOWING :     

ORDER

The petitioztaer traces his ” u

measuring 30′ X 62′ in Sy.No.54/31″.Qf:1..i{Oi1eI§£i

Vatthur hobli, HASB area, saute, 6§_::i”£’V:3f
15 acms which is said to be be1o;1g§;ig._t0jhe..efig§1:;a1V.ibwner
Chinnappa Reddy, who property in
favour of Ready on
3.8.1959, WlZ%0~ to variuus
persons V» __ * qiieetion in favour of
Smt.Yas1i§>da_ __who in turn entered into

ayeement and acting as a GPA holder

conveyaf:d”tl1e petitioner under a registered

The petitioner secured a plan

and erected a residential b13uld’ ing,

” the mid pxogyeragé bears HASB katha No.703/LA and new

Nc>,__Ai267/1/703/ }.–A of Konena Agrahara, Varthm”

VA HASB area, Bangaiore south. According to the

éggifioner, the claim of the respondent that the land

, ipurchased by the petitioner in Sy.No.60 of Konena

M

with law to cancel the kathas made in favour _Qf_ * ~

petitionezr and othexs.

4. The very fact that the A’

the action must be taken in aémqrdaxiczé ‘Vwitil

petitiiencr must await the decision
BBMP and if aggieved écci$i6£; in a
mazimar known to TheAAVpq:E1:i!:iV<)'Lfi§__V and has
not {)CCéEiSi0I1€d at
the hands of . 'V l V V
'1' he rejected.

safes
“-w-v %%%%% Eudgé