High Court Karnataka High Court

Venkat Rao vs The State Of Kar on 19 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Venkat Rao vs The State Of Kar on 19 August, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT 0;' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT 3353;}; Li?   _

GULBARGA

DATED ms THE 19m my on' AWIIST 20G8%  %%  F  7

PRESEN'I',*  % V % _

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE   

THE HON'BLE MR. ar3?:)wDA
  L 

BETWEEN:
VENKAT RAQ        % %
S/O. GOVINI) RAD 3%{ULKARI*I.i    
A{}E':8'7 YEARS,  .   »' 
occ: BUSINESS,
12/0. KUBA PL;::'i',_ " t
    ..... 

GULB”A_R’GA_ ” j

” _ APPELLANT
(BY SR1 S.’K,. ADVOCATE)

: ‘ . ‘ A
if.’ ‘si?AT§,*§ 01? 1€Ar<:NA'rAI<A,

k '.VP¥;_IBL£C'WOi{fKS §EPAR'I'ME'N"{',
, 9 '=.%,'is»£;,'s. _BUH.I1¥i'NG,
F€';'§§:iI._ BY rrs SECRETARY,
A A BA1\3"€}ALORE.

2: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

%/

GULBARGA, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
GULBARGA.

3. ms; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, . ~
AU’l’HORI3ED omvxcme 1»-ma AU’rHox2r1*x’,. é
JEWARGI ROAD, . i
GULBARGA.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT 09 POLICE.
GULBARGA.

5. THE CORPORATIGN cm e§%%.%f:;ULmR(}:=;.k$
REP. Bvrrscommissrorma.

6. THE URBAN DEV£’}L(}§Z£’IEN€EfA A;JTHc21éi*:’1<..%…..k. ' %
GULBARGA, % A
REP. BY ITS COMMISS}ON.ER:V..'i'.'j '

7. HARSHA GUI?’FAA” AV 3; ‘ _
N OT IUNER’, ‘
AGED: MAJOR, . . V
occ: INCHARGE3 REGI0NAL.c’oMMIssIoNER,
MINI VIDHANA SC5’Uf)HA’, _
MAIN ROAD. V
B5N’$ALO{RE. %%%%%
3 RESPONDENTS

THis.w.;a..TAIsi’:?1Lfip(AU/s. 4 01? mg KARNATAKA HIGH
COLIRF ACT’ VPRAYING: TO SET ASIDE THE oanm mssm
1:NrHE: WRIT”PE?I’ifI’I()N NC1.4{)I55/2008 DATED 13.3.2003.

a: Writ coming on for cmiers this day,
‘ J, dcliverw the followiztxgw

JUDGENT

The appeal in quesfien is in respect _ef~ ‘Seine. ‘4 V

subject matter in o.s.No.:e3/2003. Tine ,s’i;it’ -ie’ ¢.deer’eed_

against: the respondents in respeci -pf psfayer V

injuncts the respondents from deII1o1iem’;:1’g.V1;he” in
questions without due process’ f3–aw§_fV 3; j’ ‘

2.’I’he Appellant had writ of
prohibition against the
structures under the evithout following
the procedure j The appellant had
eeught for ix1te1’iIe’pede§’ agei;1e1ei:_4t£Vie’;espondents. The learnw
Single Judge _ fin interim order. The
appelleiit» copy of the interim order.
hfonttzeiese of the eeunsel for the
a§§’e££ent for interim order is rejected, still we

f’1:’ni–!ii:?;et:_Vi”z}.i;’1g tfiefivrit appeal is unnecwsary. The Appellant

-teiten decree frem a Civil Court against the

from demofiehhxg the \ structures without
the law envisaged in the n Act. The

appellant can successfully execute the decree __ _

apprehends that there is possibility of demo1itica:’;.’..¢A_: 3

view, the LA and the Writ appeal are disn§:§}ss<§d§A. ;jEt is

that the appellant: can successfuI1y.4_resist_v_"i}1e
before the cxecuting Civil Court is all
rights and remedies available " N