High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mahadevaiah M C vs The State Of Karnataka Ministry Of … on 13 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahadevaiah M C vs The State Of Karnataka Ministry Of … on 13 September, 2010
Author: H N Das
IN 'THE HIGH CGIRT GP' KARKATAKA, BANGALORE 

mama ms mm mm mm are mmnrsmax 2c:::%7f"j% %

BEEQRE L  
TEE I-iOH'*EZ£ rm. ..rus'r1c:E rm.  

§ 

Sri. Mahadevaiah MC V  
S] :0. chum Basavajah,  
Agw about 53 yw,

(By Sri. gem  
gm; " l A  "  %

1.

‘i’1:m_$tate
cf
% Rcpi-asm1ie=,.dl§ri1:é””‘

Baawalaz-a;4j’..– *

* Tim

.. Urban Bevehupmezat Auflmrigr,

– _ –.'[Pe§1IDA},
* ‘ifiiymra

,..

WW

wag: mmmr Ho.§55§ Q F ‘ T ~R§ 31%% % = %

3. Zmml 0%? — 5
Mysore Urban Bevabpwzt Authnrity,

Mysore. RE$?C}I§1;§£’£?fi’:$: _

(By ex-i.1>.s..M:anjum.th, Adv. for R2

sfi.K.s. ” ,GPfor 3:-uweagdé A

M writ; petitinn is fixad-z:ndm«4′ ‘. be : %

22’? at? the C:::n3tit’i.1’&Iz {if
order passed m «- Te? da’£:’&civi2$_.11.2£@ passed
by tbs 2&5 rmpondent %1t1HQ.BtII}BA:RI$HA:2002403 am
eta _

Tifim writ petfi zltm _ ” tlfim tiay,
the Court mafia fhffi ..

In has prayacl far a

wx’:t’ in the «,rg mf quash the order dated

2s.11.9%L% 15€E” ] — ‘M’ ‘ the

:1-if aita. of the pefitimmar axxd far a writ

uf ” Em mmwmmtbn dated

wtitiamm flfi an applizzatinn an

with thc 2:31 rwpondmt walcim alksmwnt at’

‘V V 205:. 3:: 30 ft. undar SC Cat:Qory.’1’1:ue 2″!

IN…»

r-I’

J”

reapoadmt by ceriafimim the appliaatatcn cf

petitinnm: afiotztack a. sim Iifcxlfifi
20ft:.x.30fi:. in Hanchya and Sathagally ‘A’

In this Iattm’, it is awcifiaeéd that the

at R3-22,{J®[-. As per the x.;:s.f
petifioner was 1*equir’ed to.;;1apoa’it ‘af f§!§.’3,3{>Qi-

balsam amung. days
thm’eaf£m’. the petifioxmr
dep-ositwzi 3; aftar 8. hpae: af
ninety another sum cf
Ea.i{},2’7Af’-$_[_;- the payment was

mg. txinety éays, the saw was

rmponsdent by showing 1:12

A-zaorxew sfién ta t;i3–.aé; 1::-efiwrmn ‘Imam, ‘chm peu’tkme:r

— dégvgéhit the bahrm amurzt cf R’s.8,520/- am!

altaernafivae, the 213* rmpandent; paasad thus

.6’\./

O”

izaapumed order on 28.11.2602 as pm’ Amxezxure – M’

czanscelling the site in quastimz. Again on 07.01.2003 .

more apportum’ty was provided to thc pcti.t§#§fhe1f« – ‘

issuing’ a final rmtréce but the V’

am am. we petitianer hav1ng’V hep:

time made an rapreeartatinn
the 206 rwpondent ta
anmm: with inmrest.

issued an flfldbfflfiifigfifit that the
aim in Vfiaumzér cf one
Prabhusssngiiafijgf the claim of
the n1ez~% the

_gav¢ ‘a._:repfwenta ‘ on 16.01.2909 as per

:’G” that: 2% rwpondant ta allot

één. Since’ the 2&5 z-mponxijent fa11ad’

I aanI&s~ifie:rv§_v-il;.l§:’.~’fi§oquat er the pe:titicnm’, he is berm.

_ .. writ petition.

:3. Hard the ax-gumm on bath am and

/V

4. Admittedly, the peamm has mt paid

aital value: in term cf the canditmm or % f % _

pe1§.tn1onfl* Imp: qufie witlmut ”

site in qua-stien in fifimur
Prabhuawamy is not
‘Ihez-afire, the 1:: p;-aya
theoréar dame; in
raw:

5. 121% to SC
‘AV_ more than 50% ofthe

E3a.1e'”~tg m, um

‘_ the balamesiml value wxthm’ ‘

A the oatfiitxons’ of alietmmt.

m n dated 16.91.2009 as per

Ammvgre — ‘G’ and afiot man an alternative sits, if it
avaihbke in the same layrmt or in the max-by myopjg:
expeditiously as paaaible. O1-dame} a<;<m~c1m1y* . _ '