High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Kumaraswamy vs Deputy Commissioner on 18 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Kumaraswamy vs Deputy Commissioner on 18 March, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
am-1 CQURT 0F WQNATAKA HEGH  OF !mRNA"fAKA HEGH COURT OF K'ARNfl'i'AKA HIGH COURT OF KKRNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CG

IN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ~f»T=T"

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2009

BEFORE _TT_

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARA3AN$-STAMTT-T

WRIT PETETEON No.9988/2§§s(KiRei@} :TT*

BE TWEEN

SR1 KUMARASWAMY
3/0. PULLAEAH Hm

AGED ABOUT 514¥EARS:"

SR1 INDRASERA  i__

s/o. RANGAIAH:", ' . '..
AGED ABOUT 45 TEARS j*

SRI M 3aNaRDfiAx»TVT'
s/0. RAMANJALU 'V ,.«
AGED ABOUI 58 YEARS'_"

SR1 §=NARATANAEPA1

;m 9/0; LATE NANJAFPAm,
*, AGED ABfiUT"52 YEARS

"sR:,é*§HANA§&A§a

S/Q;¢RANGA:a&J
AGEE ABQUT"53 YEARS

. ALL ARE R/AT RAHUTHANRHALLI VILLAGE

' VDASANAPURR HGBLI

. <BANsALoRE NORTH TALUK

'"=§N§ :

" BA3:IG23.1'_.eORE URBAN QISTRICT .

PETE TIONERS

Sri. H ASHOK KUMAR: AWOCATE}

DEPUTY CGEVEVIISSIQNBR
BANGALORE URBRN DISTRICT
BANGALORE *~ 580001.



NM"! uuuxr Of KA-RNATAKA i'EiGI'i  OF KARNATAKA REG?! COUR? 0? KARNATAKA H16!-'E COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Cfi

2 ASST COMMISSIONER
LEGAL CELL & PREVENTION OF
UNAUTHORIZED CULTEVATION
O/O OY COMMISSEONER
BANGALORE URBAN DESTRIC?.
3 THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560001.

4 THE CHAIRMAN "zOW
LANE GRANT COMMITTEE EQN'._--_ ~-_ :
GRANT OF LANQS T@.pNAETH0EzED*QccUPANTs
OF GOVERNMENT LANDS_BANGRLORE»NORTH
TALUK. ;' =--'J _f=T."g
_-__u.v_ ..."REEE0NDENTs

{By Sri T N EAGNNQATET EOE NTOTb"N3}

sax. SNTTANANATANNETNEE, Neg? FOR R4)

THIS N.é*EiEEQ_uNEEN'ANT:cEEs 225 AN9 22? or
THE cQNsTIT"T:oN7, oE*._INEIA TO DIRECT THE
RESPONEENTS To ECNETDEE THE FORM NO.5G SUBMITTED
BY THE PETTTTONENS; IN? ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN
RESPEQT" OF TNEO LANDS IN QUESTION WHICH ARE

O"NENTT9NEE:TN_ANNEXUN A, c, E, G AND J ST.S.8.l991
'NNEC:5.8.i9§1ORESPGECTTVELT AN8 ETC.

'*_TETs_OEETiT:oN coNTNG ON FOR HEARING THIS

O,' 'DAY, TEE EONET MADE THE FOLLOWING:~

O R D E R

The petitioners have scmght fox: a direction
directing the respondents to consider the Form
No.50 made by the petitioners as per Annexures-

A, (L E, (3 and L; dated 5.8.1991 and, 15.8.1991

w w.»u:s’w.n:nM”‘*a. mswwrw wwmma Wm” awmmwmimmm fl””lHl%”E wwwww MW” %\KNM¥M%;M WEWH Q45-.3{.}%’§

respectively. Annaxures— D, F, M, H and K a;fe t!3e

acknowledgments Io: havi ng receivga. ”
applications. ‘rho applications hav§.V__§e~.§n _}fi”lénd»:
in 1991. They have not hs§§Ei””cat:.sideflz§_§d_V_ ::§1d ‘:

dispensed of 5:: far. Hanna, tiia p;§nsa§;§;._%A.Apatit*ii.~;,g’~.

is filed.

2. Learnaui the
respondents 1 hp 4 ‘AA§’;I.t;;.§_v:’–‘-‘x-eapcndents
would considegr”3gfi}’3 to have been
filed by tifijt’.-V .4; reasonable tima

and thg’V”;5i*’aa§’ ;1t disposed Duff.

3. .vi’e=arV ‘bi’ abwe submissians, the

writ ;.;:a:>.’..’5aci aft. aaspcmdnnt. Into.-1 is

‘ ¢£i,:fa”c1E’a-éi?”L* conéiéfir the applications film! by

and pass an apprapriata crdar in

ac&u.;§§1an,c§ fin,siV;tn law, within a period at six [61

“~..«. ‘:n:>ntha”ifiam ‘aha data tax receipt 0: a copy 9: this

Sfifag
Iu&§’5

H313