High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri N Puttananjaiah vs Mysore Urban Development … on 31 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri N Puttananjaiah vs Mysore Urban Development … on 31 March, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Ln': _1.ms man II?!'

Jug: .|.:..u..u..I. Cwwnxa  53.1:-L\ nu - .. .uy.uQu3J;~,E  '

I
I
I
I
E
3

DATED 'THIS  31'? A! F M

BEFORE  

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEV_£*.S_HO'K HINQI-111933:

------.-.2-jjq

wrerr PETITION NO.  20070 
l1I".\l'l'1IIl'I"'.1.'I'.\r'I"  ' V 0 '

I

SR1 N PUTTANANJIGAH.   ~ 
S10 (3 NANAJAIAH;««T:.V%»i.'--  2: 
AGED ABOUT 5?. YEARS;   _  
R,IA_T ego DEVABIUR   
No.53, Ama BLGEK, ., Q *
11TH can-ss; 1ssg:.I11..I i:1::«:~:>Az.),"-

'hr

KUVEMPU Nn.cmir:,V0«V._0"V0  "
Ivfi"soRE.=_ -  '

  X V  PETITIONER
(131: 3121 .1 PMQHANTH (is v R SARATHY, ADVOCATES)

.'+=I¥&%eRE.- .U§2BA.i"% _§3E'.'FuL-0. ME..T

Au':fH0'RI'rv-- '{i;a1L's=DA)
 BY 

' .COMMI$SlONER, J. L. 13. ROAD,

  lmfsonrsa *

 RESPONDENT

(BY SR! R VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SR1 M.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 2527 OF’ THE C'(‘.’)I’T§”i”i’i”iJ”‘i”i(‘JI\I’ OF ififiiix 1″-“‘RFl’¥’iI’\f€’:r TO

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE A DATED
02.04.2007 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER
AS ILLEGAL AND INOPERATIVE.

E0

or D 7791 m’m.nI

THIS PETITION comma on FOR ORDERS ‘_l;’i-i~!SVVel’..)}_i”‘.:.’r’,,l”

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Although the matter is listed orden; V.

I have taken it up for final wiflt both

the learned counsels.

2. The. beer jet ee are that the
respondent vNo.7459_, measuring

40 X 60 TV e;tL.u=ted’ at Filth Stage, 2″‘ Pha-.$,

vijeyanaglere, lMyVseeelfide..;l1s:s order dated 31.67.1998

(Anne)_m_re –~la’C),:V AS thedpletitioner committed default in

V’ the V-Qayment of A allotment consideration, the

eeeeeued the allotment vide its order dated

G2′.f)~–a.2GG _ _ e

A A Teeem order dated 17.05.2007 passed by this Court. Sri

Vivekananda, the learned counsel for the respondents

submits that some more amounts have fallen due

HRH

: 3 ; W.P.’7721I07lLBl

subsequent to the issuance of the demand _:IiBfjCt§__:’ at”

4. I _uash the impugned

fro the mfiuoner

and by reserving the to”theifispondent’-to”impose

interest at such such
penalty as it deetsisjfit. satisfithjgp that there are

d1_1,s v.tvhe”‘1respondent shall allot

L110 11. Z 1 qfififluGfl:V LG. I..:;.u l.A.»I_..I.uuuu-J. auuu uflfilplfltfi ‘£113

Process dd

.. Th” “etiticaer she}! make the payment to we

three weeks from the date of the

of notice from the respondent. The

_ ‘.respondet1t ‘V complete the pnocess of allotment

m_n_hs the date of the receipt of the