High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri R Krishnaswamy Naidu vs The Gottigere Grama Panchayat on 3 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri R Krishnaswamy Naidu vs The Gottigere Grama Panchayat on 3 July, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 

mrrsn THIS Tim aw DAY or JIILY   " 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE am. JUSTICE _V 

msc.w.No. 3916 01?-1699 A  
wnrr PETITION no. 15 % [apnoea gxanmy

BETWEEN

1 SR¥ R KR1s};mAsW.:AMY'z~{A1_m3=--__ 
S] 0 LATE"Ci%;IPi'NA}?PA; £€AISU  v 
AGED A:3ca;J'i":;_7,6 YEA_R"S.,   .
R/A N(3.14_~-/"15, as3 0!RN' RGAK; CROSS
BAN(iALQRE'<1ra;2VV .. " " "  

2 SM'I'DE:'3AMMA'*  ,_ 
w/0 RL.'KRisHreAswAM¥ NAIDU
AGEK) ABGI}T'68 YEARS,
 12?./A_ NO. 14/1:;,.._Q_3BoRN ROAD {moss

'  _ BAHGALQRE 42

   142'

 "S/O R'.--KRlSHNASWAMY NAIDU
 ABOUT 43 YEARS,
15:" .NO.2250, BOWDOIN STREET
PA£:~A"ALTO, CA 94306, U.S.A.

   =  iié; K BABU s/0 R KRIS}-INASWAMY NAIDU

AGE 48 YEARS

R/A No.2250, BOWDOIN STREET
PALO--AL'1'O, CA-943()6,U.S.A.

PTNRS. 2 T0 4 REP. BY THEIR GPA momma?
SR1 RKRISHNASWAMY NAIDU P'I'NR.NO. 1

UK



(By Sri ; G R GURUMATH 85 B s MURALI, AEV   -,: "  %

AND :

1

 PE'I'lT_I  x W

THE GOTTIGERE GRAMA PAM'-HAYAT
GOTTIGERE  .  
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI '  " 
BANGALORE scum TALuI{_ 
BANGALORE    
REPRESENTED BYBTS S:*2:cm«;*-r5RY....

DR NAGARAJ S/O T P-JMAI;LIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YERRSf.' "  ; .V 
R/A NO.1}§)%'~-13;'-29'l?H A r,:R0ss.ij= .. 
7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR  1* .
BANGfi;LOI_?'EV2'?"._    

sM?'B&'E$r§A1.OiéHArJ_A w,-'o'D1=e NATARAJ
AG-ED._ABoUTV..s0 YEARS, ~ -

R/A. No. 109-3,   CROSS

'?'l'H c:Ross,'uA*vANAGAR

BANGALORE 2? ' " "

._f 'FE-IE_L VBA_NGAI;i)RE METROPOLYFAN REGIONAL
. _ "DEv'I;:L0?_MENT AUTHORITY,
 " BY-m _COMMISSIONER, LRD6 BUILDING,
 MILLERS RGAD, BANGALORE

A "~THEv'BAn§5C}ALORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY VETS TOWN PLANNING DEF',

" ' *-KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE

   '~  imzopossn RESPGNDEMS

M



Bangalore --~ Mysore Infrastructure Corridor " 

Authority; Revenue Secretary and    i 

Commissioner, Bangalore Rum}  ""._a.é;4._t1iey,a T. 

proper and necessary parties go   .

meaningful decision making.

2. Heard the    ii_1e'.'appfieant as
well as the   There is no

opposition    

3. the  therein, the application

is allowed. 'I'heV_'proposed'"respondents are permitted to

‘V “be org responders 6, 7 ,8 and 9.

A to amend the cause title.

Sd/-?%__
Judge