Sri Raghavendra vs Sagar City Municipality on 2 March, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANC,~QXVLfJ1§"EV.

DATED THIS THE 2N;-> DAY OF MARCI9I:._:i2(}V'H)III' I  I»  I

BEFORE:  

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  

W.P.NO.10096 O§'?I.II.:2'{)O9 II.LB§RE5I5i.1  

BETWEEN:

I. SR1 RAGHAVENDRA . I
S /0 PANDURANGA SI-I--E.'I}
AGED m3C_).UT._4"_8 YEARS _
R/A s.P.M;.,VR(;III:. SAGAR

PIN.» 4IIjI1..*i:;:,  'I I

2. sRI'v£:I~LtxI\a'DR'As-IIEI§AIf2,__'-
s/0 P_ANDURAN€3A 
AGED ABOUT 3.9 '{EAR.*f:"$
R_,"--A S.P.M.._ROAD. SAGAR
,I>.I;\I 4577 403»  _

" ' V. . """ "  PETITIONERS

     GOWDA. A1)/.,}

I   I. .E ISAGAR cm' MUNICIPALITY

, _ 17,'¥"'I_«' ITS COMMISSIONER
"SAGAR. SHIMOGA DISTRICT

 PIN ~ 577 401
M



22. SMT.  SHMAMMA
DEAD BY HER LRS.

2.{a) SR} G31'. BHEMAIAH SHARMA
S/O K.H.THIMMA1AH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

2.0:») SR1 G.T. RANOANATRA SHARMA
S/O K.H. THIMMAIAH   _
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/O I
GOLGODU, SAGAR TA:';UR_V
SHIMOGA DISTRICT " "

PIN--577 401. ' ii
 RESPONDENTS

THIS w.I>. IS EILEOOLININER. ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF’ IN.OIA_ RRA:EING~T’?O DIRECT THE
181′ RESPONDE_NT__ TO ;CONSII)ER..fIHE«..APPLICAT1ON FOR
ISSUE OF SALE,CERTIEICATE WI-TH.\.,.REsPECT TO THE

PROPERTY MEASURING«»..EAST TO WEST 90″‘AND NORTH
TO SOUTH .21″j”-NOw”I’BEARINO SL.NO.94I, PROPERTY
NO.160G. SORAE”ROAE._1_”MAYA EAZAR (NOW 2ND moss.
SUBASH NAGAR)’; SA.oA.R’_.-AND ETC.

TRIS w.I5; =COIy_I’INo ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS

. . DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CREE

Q3-*1′ allegation that the 2″” respondent during

her iifetime Secured 3. Registration Of a S3.}e Certificate

E ‘~~exCCijted by the IS!’ respondent Munieipaiity Conveying a

E -»v-certain immovable property, the petitioners eiairning on

M

ownership rights on the said property have presented

this Writ petition for the following reliefs.

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus direL§ti’ng..’_’t-he r.l__~_* _

respondent to consider the application’~-i”ozj:.l_iss4L1e of 9

Sale Certificate with respect. to ljproplerty

measuring East to West Nlortihstvozl
2.1′ now bearing S1.*:_l\}’«O_’.942l’;._ prope’r”t’y_j},§600,_t>

Sorab Road. Maya }3a2′;iazi_xh(now 2″”.”:C1″‘:(3S$V;§ Subash

Nagar). Sagar. 7

[ii] Issue ‘”vv_r:i’t quashing the
Sale H CL}:tificate€:_ 2: 1g’sue’d V’ favour of
Smti’ _ No. 128 / 87-88 dated

1 {Arlneréure _’~»~ ‘P’).

_2. Gowda. learned counsel

fo1’irthfg.ev:petitioners-~contends that, the ls’ respondent

Nl’l_,I’VI’1i(:i’f3,_:VE.1’1’»,’if”)’..,:V”W§thOLlE considering the case of the

pc:tition.er’s’:–_.for issue of Sale Certificate in respect of

immovable properties has in fact executed a Sale

V.”vl.uCerjt£ficate in favour of the deceased the 2M1 respondent.
. 5

M