Sri Sathyanarayana Setty S K vs State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2008

4
invested his lifetime eaxnirags, hence calls fer

interference, I am not impressed by that submiséion.

The very fact that the petitioner seeks {if

regtflarisation of a residential site presuppgécfis _

petitioner is not surc cf ‘ o*a;nership
rights in the prop&?cy In such
circumstances, matter.

petition is    '

Sd/-
Judge