WP No.16924/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD __ ' V
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBR1.I_AR%I?.,V % 3 '
BEFORfimflH_'» _ V»
THE HON'BLE §VIR.JI JS_'41"ICE;Q'SA§3BI-IASI%If'.BI_. ADI V'
WRIT PETITION No.i*é§2»4/2007 S
BETWEEN:
I. . SRI MARUTHI SEETHAIVVWA' CH_ALW,ADI
5'7 YEARS,-OCC PRINCIPAL '_ «V '
BASAvESI~I_w'.AR '¥vIDYA:vARDA-K, SANGH
BAGAIE-:O'I?';I'I" . 1
R /O =iBACv"AL'KO.T., _ ._ "
DIST:BAG;§,;I{KO'f'~'58"?' Ir)_If V
2. SR1-_SRIDiiA-R"~ _ _ ' -
S',-to MARU'1"{¥1SI.RA.TNAI<iAR @ CHALWADI
34 YEARS,"OCc STAFF NURSE
DISTRICT HVOSPITAL, KALADAGI ROAD
" _; R /O BAGA1-KOTV58710}
,' SR1 SREZESHAIL
_ S,/,_O MARUTHI RATNAKAR @ CHALWADI
. 30. "1f.,EA..RS, OCC STAFF NURSE
' DIS'rR__IC'T HOSPITAL KALADAGI ROAD
BAGALKOT 587101. ...PETITIONERS
I (BY SRf.A.S.PATIL, ADV)
* _ FQLLQWING:
WP NQ15924/2007
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY _.
TO THE DEPT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,...__ T" V A'
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE I.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER
BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOP'
{BTDA), BAGALKOT '
DISTBAGALKOT.
MENT AUTH'OR'I:T_'I'. "
.:;'.._RnESPO_NDENTS~T'" V'
{BY S1VIT.K.VIDYAVATHI, AGAE O V' O
'«R RI I
R2 SD (ABSEN )) I
THIS PETITION IsEILED;U.N'DEIR"ImRTICLEs 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ;"OECII-.I1§IDI-A PRAYING TO
DIRECT R2 TO GIVE RER1vIIssIO.N AND'*=TO' SANCTION THE
LICENCE TO.-."CONi3TRU_(}f1' 'THE ' HOUSES BY THE
PETITIONERS Eifr _,CONFIRMING_ THE'"'LEASE_3 CUM SALE
DEED ExE'Ci'.ITE-D:--_V_BY-HIMIN 'RESPECT OF SITES, THE
DEscRIPTI_ONi.. {OF 'WHIICH "ARE MENTIONED IN THE
SCHEDULE.' -- V
_ _THIS"~ PETITION "COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN *E',_OROOR, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
ORDER
2*”? respondent is served has remained
nunrepresented.
The case of the petitioners is that the place where the
= …–DetitiOnerS were residing is Submerged in Upper Krishna
WP No.16924/2007
Project in terms of the Bagalkot Town Development Authority
(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1993. Respondent “f1$io:..f2-fiiad
invited applications for the eligible persons
sites. In this regard, the petitioners
applications for allotment. After
were issued with the ins’
favour of petitioner No__.l, favotirypof petitioners
No.2 and 3 as per Further, lease-
cum»sa1e de6ClS Were” their favour.
Thereafterytlhe I’*ElfSponder__1tifp’;vithout even hearing the
petitioners’ vvithoutflconsihdering the objections filed by
them has .cancel1ed. Vthe_:iallo.tments only on the ground that
the petitioners are]. cla_irning occupancy rights in respect of a
‘~ _ shownila’s”€.—-overnment Medical Officers Quarters.
‘Learned.*counsel for the petitioners submits that to
draw s_uch.«:lan inference, the authority has not perused the
Aprecordsiiand not considered the objections and that the
if ~..Vauthlority without hearing the petitioners has passed the
.. virnpugned order. He submits that on the basis of the
§%i-
¥5=*r_f
we No.16924/2007
enquiry, the authority earlier had granted the sites .an-d:th_ere
afterwards executed the lease–cum–sa1e dee_.ri_s.i’an’d—-..
thereafter the authority has cancelled the ulfiv .
the authority wants to cancel the,A_a11o.tmient, it have
heard the petitioners.
4. I find from the;..records–««-thatthe peitiitionerjs are not
heard in the matter. iFKeneAe,”.itiiVat.V:the matter requires
reconsideration; V’
5. isgallowed. The impugned
order is quash.’edT _2na”}espon:Cient hisfldirected to hold an
enquiry after giving an being heard to the
petitioners. _ _
6. VS:nitr.K.’Jid.i3ia’Jathvi, learned AGA is permitted to file
memo :55 ap_pea’rvai1ee %’.ifi’ti;lin four weeks.
h /M
3 ilgggg
