Csfi I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT A'
DATED THIS THE 19m DAY OF' NOVEMBETI
BEFORE _MI_ _WIIIII I
THE HOTTBLE MR. JUsTIcE;.AJ1f1
IN I _ --- fig
WRIT PETITION V . 2'O.Q'5[LA'-'-BDA]
REVIEW PETITI'(I)VN...N()a{2
BETWEEN I
1. The State ofvliajrfratagkai
Represented, by"fi_t_s Seere1;ary« 1] .
And Corrfmis-Sipher, .R'ei}feri'ue_-
Departrnerit Bai'1-drrxg, A .. I I
Bangalore; .. ff. _
2. The Deputy C(;rf1fr1i_aS§(§f1e§"
Bangalore Di_s.1:ri_ct,:.
Bangalore." _ ' '
,frgé*nahsfldar III " '''''
' VAneekal'Ta1;ii: 4;
"B_anga10_re District
'«Banga1ore..
' '.4. The Dvireefor General and
xIr1spe<:té)r General of Police
If ~ VNr'upathunga Road.
_B»an'gal0re. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sr1'.M. Keshava Reddy, Adv.)
AND:
M.A.Rasheed
S / 0 Mohammed Yakub
Since dead by Legal Heirs:
1.
Rafiya Sultan
W/o Late M.A. Rasheed
Aged about 65 years...
M. Abdul Waheed
Aged about 48 years
Abdul Majeed
Aged about 40 yea1"s_*~._
Abdul Muyeed H
Aged about 35 years
Abd1.1It«Waji;§' _
Aged about 32a yiearsv ' h
Kauserdabeendd' if v
Aged about years' A
Sérbedth Jabeen. eeeee .. -
« Aged' 27 years
AW/0 Syed Elias
Aged-__'abo*{1t 36 years
-A at All are Children oflate
, _M:A. Rasheed, R/at No.36
lizih Main, Opp. Water tank
B.T.M. Layout, Bangalore.
No.8 is residing at
9"' B, 'A' Main,
B.T.M. Layout,
Bangalore ~ 560 029.
9. The Commissioner
Bangalore Development
Authority. K.P.West,
Bangalore.
{By Sri.K.Krishna Adv. for RQV4)';
This review petition is_fille'c1__under.Order_§é7 Rule
1 of CPC with a prayer' to review golf-..'the order dated
19.11.2008 passed in vvzvzoi54;/e2Or0%:3,_en_ the file of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnat-a1:a_f B..a.ngaflo_re.
This we-xl*ie§.e.tVt:e1'petition hearing, this
day, the Cot1«I*t'~n__1a.de. the foillovvtngtzv H .
The respondents'Vifere"n'otified of this writ petition.
They are ;s’e’r\_red tinreldresented.
V 2;” learned counsel has entered
appearaiiee ftirvresllpondent No.9 ~ BDA.
3.-fIt’he”‘S.tate is seeking review of the order passed
thtis”‘A’Court in W.P.No.20164/2005 decided on
r «T i _ T 19f1’i1’;200s.
./7″‘
-4-
4. Mr.KeshaVa Reddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State
that certain factual aspects of the matter§’_T”Wa.s;-..:Iiot_j_ _
brought to the notice of this Court writu ‘*
petition was heard. He submits tahatithde gran.t”ma:depii1s.r_’
favour of the respondents vI”i_as_V.beenv. set..–as’ide.i.’a.f:Her3 an -. ”
enquiry, as directed anotherppvbatch of
writ petitions in V 1′ 1 1/ 1998 and
connected rnatt_ers_ ‘ it 999. Hence,
he submits. by this Court
to the 1.conce1’n’ed_’Vauthorities, to enter the names of the
respondentsRevenue Records does not
arise; ‘ ”
9 it .p .. 4’5;..fPipf3i1renti§.mthe respondents are not before this
i*CVourt9″c.o”ntest~*the said contention. Hence, I am of the
view._that’*.vhen the grant itself is no longer in existence,
Tthepquestion of issuing a direction to the petitioners 2
to consider the request of the respondents to
enter their names in the Revenue records would not
arise. i am of the View that the writ petition itseif wouki
9%
J
not survive for consideration inasmuch as when the
matter was taken up earlier, It/Ir,£{rishz1a,’4.1.ee:;ftied
counsel appearing for the BDA submitted _
notification has been quashed by .this
does not survive for consideration anti indeed’ it Iis_s;:_.*
Hence, the question of di1fe’ction«~-.,to.3 the-ii’
Revenue authorities;_. to the of the
respondents in the wouid not arise
inasmtich 35′; Government
Advocate after de novo
inhifavour of respondents and
Othersiivhiave Hence, the question of
granting any_Vre}.i.ef in unit petition does not arise.
Revieew fiefition stands allowed and the writ ‘
I Vpetitiojnis disfnissed.
Sd/*’*
Tudcie
S’-PS