IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, T ' L
DATED THIS THE Tm DAY
BEFORE % A V %
THE I~€{ON'BLE MR. JUsTIc:§%L»}§AM MOHAI€:.VREi)fiVY
WRIT PETITION rzg3;.1958§i§*9,V(ii)a([;I3~BM:i>)
BETWEEN ._
SRIMSOMAIAH "
S/OCTMAD3§IA«H'--V..---':--_ V .
AGED ABOU'i'_5C§__Y:EAI%S _ é A
R/AT No sec; Iz~EMc;;)..(BH'EL) LA¥Q_U'I'
11 SFAGE M
RAJARAJAESHWAREN-,AGAR--,_ 1. ' %
BANGALORE'~--98'_ * ~
* " PEFITIONER
_ (By LEX ADV.)
'1 * VCSQMIIWISSIONER
' , VBRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HU._E)S{}N CIRCLE
BANGALORE
"THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
- BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BANGALORE-93
RESPONDENTS
M
(By S111: K N PUTFEGOWDA, ADV.)
2
THIS wan’ PETITION ES FILED UNDER ART1oL_ee_j22e_
AND 22? o}? THE oonsrmmom or? mom PRA.Y_I_i*é.(}”TO 3
QUASH ANNEXURE E THE ENDORSEMENT IS$$UEi3jf’*.E3_Y-‘._..”.
me 122 131′. 15.12.2007. GRANT INTERIM olgzoee. Toe»
PERMIT THE’. PE’I’I’I’IONER TO PAY THE Aeseeshaewr «IN ‘»
RESPECT or THE PROPERTY sueJ’Ee*r.fm RE_SU.LT ‘0?
THE WRIT PETITION IN RESPECR 053 THE. PR0PE}2TY.:;.A
BEARNING 1~:o.5oo SITUATWED ‘A_T”~_ REMCQ’~..(BHEL) ”
LAYOUT, RAdARAJESHWARIN!%{3’rA__R.
THIS PETYPION, commooo _FOi§”Pi§ELIBii1NARY
HEARING, THIS my COL3’W_MADE FOLLOWING:
e L
The a ‘Fienxco / BHEL
House ” society, was allotted a
reeidential”‘sii:e formed by the Society after
, the eeiqiiieitioniliofeiaiigie. That acquisition in respect of
of the lands was set-aside by the Apex
owners of the said lands staking a
Iolainix .. to: h’ 4′ restoration. The petitioner instituted
B5365] 2005 amongst other allottees, leading to
Compromise decree declaring the petitioner as the
V’ u”.’o\’vn.er in possession and enjoyment of the said site. The
erstwhile owners of the iands, aggrieved by the transfer
of katha in favour of the petitioner, amongst others,
bi
3
instituted proceedings under Section 1
Kamataka Municipal Co1’mratieI1s
‘Aet’) culminating in the _o_1fder *– dated
Annexure-“D” of the 2n”* ‘}’s’
Commissioner holding’ ra§%eui¥ of the
petitioner in respect ofA.hf.hi¢ along with
seven others ” not call for
‘iI1tCI’fGI’BIH1q6:: ” the petition for
review.
It see A anegaesn of the petitioner that when
the declined to receive the tax
ex; “–_the land and building, similarly
members made Imuests through a
‘We1fa1’e.vV__AAssociation, leading to the issue of the
rendefsement dated 16-12-2007 Annexure-“E” dechnm’ g
_tes§reeeive the tax as assessed on the badge of pendency
‘ of litigation. Hence, this writ petition. * TJ\
3. Admittedly, the endorsement is V
addressed to one S.
BHEL Layout Residents wexfam Assc}ciatio1fi “.vihiié k
writ petitian is preferred by No
material is forthcoming’: apm ;§:a;§i’Fp¢titi¢::% the
claim of the petitioner through
the Welfare It as to whether
the petifionéz; of the welfare
Associatstoai.” – i relevant material
consfitutiixgi’ evidence of a fact as to
whcthexs .1116 member and whether the
espouse: the cause of the
possiblc to accept the plea of the
petitioner Welfare Association in fact espoused
.. in addition, the only statement made in the
with regard to espousing the pei’.itioner’s
“causia reads thus:
“6. Xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner had alsoV>’ma(j.o””s{$fm:¢”~.::
requests through the X
and the Joint V’
endorsement on 16-12«2{}G7
property is subject 1I1attcI:’fGf_
only after the iiischaxgod,
the rospondont: wogllgi of
asscssmonfif “_-_
4.f’I’%hTiss. “‘st:fitv.=2§(:h “i1ii.agi11ation one could
possibly d:r”awV 8; that the potitioner’s cause
was ospousod Association to whom
‘ Armexiiso-v~”E’fondorso1ioont is adtirossw.
‘- it is also not the case of the petitioner
3, representation was made to the
o of the respondent Corporation to receive the
6. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a
proper mpresentation in writing to the respondents, and
M
6
if aggrieved by the response thereto, to
sama in an appropriate ‘ ies
accordingly rejected. 9 _ A T» _ A (
KS