High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S Hanumanthappa vs The Executive Officer Taluka … on 2 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Hanumanthappa vs The Executive Officer Taluka … on 2 December, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
A "i  2

 1. The Executive Ofiicer,

-1...

IN THE HIGH coum OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN(}A_LORE
DATEI) THIS THE 2% DAY 01:' })ECEMB1f;I-?Q §£'i§():8vv.,
BEFORE J ukfi

THE I--:0N"BLIs:. MR.JUs*rIr.:E i2;«.yi..«MAL;i.§1§1'r1k«'  A

 

WRIT PI::'m'ION No. 1476.3' 4;)?   
BEFWEEN:  A"   

1. s:i.s.Hanumant:;.1ppa,%" % -    ~
S/o Mahadcvappa,.TAgc-d ycars;

2.    
S/0   56 years;

3/0 Mai33~d¢Va9Pa¢'%'A%%_ % %
Aged aboutéifi. years; " 

4. sfi.s.a4a;1;gpga, A 
' S,' Q Maiiaglévappa,
I'  about' 4-!3..yeam;

" % k .   Beliudi Village,

V'  Hai'ihar; D%avm1ag' are District
   - . . . . PETYFIONERS

'{I;gE7 $RI.JAGADfiESHGOUD PATIL, AEJVOCATE.)

Taluka Panchayat,
Harihar, Davalzagcrc.

\fll<~

 



   of the property house-Est
 1\to.336/ 1 of Beuudi Village, D .
I  by virtue of the impugned notice dated
 "4".'i"I?}'.1d;';2®8 vidc Anncxure-B directed the petitioners to

4:  qégaofish their construction since the property has been

2. The Secnetaly,
Crrama Panchayat,
Befludi, Harihar 'Taluk,
Davanagere District.  _  "   
(BY SM'I'.M.C.NAGASI~IREE, HOSP.) " '

-at 1- 3».-«,1-"

This Writ Petit:v;('_)n,_is  1l1_id{fi'_AI'EiC1eS 226 and
'22'?of the Constitutioir cf India  to quash the
notice dated I7.IO.2()O8I'+It)'.I'§III.-*,"~.. by the 2""
respondent at _A:1_:1exui*é"~D;  the respondents

to consider theirep1y}€re3presentatioz1.dated 18.10.2008
submitted. by at Amxexmes ‘E’ and ‘F’
and dirmtz’ the: °1*es;50ndé:i1ts”‘not ‘to’ demolish the house
building%..Khaneéi1;3.ma;iiV.__No.’336;:1, situated at Beiludi
Village; of Ha1*iha;’,’?Dava;n_ager¢ and etc.

This ” “for pre-Lima’ ‘1na1’y’ hcarln’ g
this day, the following:-

wQaDER

‘ ‘:1″h:;V :v’o’t:”tt1e petjtionm’ is that they are the

£1;—-

m’a’tge”m’ justice. The learned counsel for

relies on the statement made by the

th.et:’house–}ist has not been maintained. This would

“the another gound to be oonsideted by the

.. 3 ..

constructed beyond the permissible limits. in response
whereof, the petitioners preferred representations vide
Annexures ‘J3’ and ‘F’ dated 18.1Q.”2t)08.
Notwithstanding the representations
respondents are proceeding to K
Hence this petition. t V» V’ A
‘2. In terms of

respondents, the hsve’ their
representations to not been

is ju1H1’st”and necessary that the

respondents ‘ eonsider the representation before

any, orders to do so would therefore

that there is no vilfi map at all

:4-~

…§..

respondents while oonsiderixlg the zepmsexltatiotms of
the petitioners.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, the “are

directed not to proceed further in the mane?’

until the representations vide An: tsxuzigs aha V’

considered in aocondance with 1$v.s__r._

Demolition of the no1′:

take place until the in matter
of consideration of méfi

{ 1 Sd/-E
Iudge