High Court Karnataka High Court

Venkatarayappa vs The Corporation Of City Of … on 20 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Venkatarayappa vs The Corporation Of City Of … on 20 January, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath
.. 1 ..
IN mg: HICEH couims 0:2' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
L>A1'1é1:> mis 'ME: 20% DAY 09' JAN UARY, 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.J1:s1'1cE;:;Av1   _   

WRIT PMITIQN NO. 12669 3:311' ;l3{3 G8'4(I..B:4.--.FiES§ f-. __V '  T
BE'rw§:13:N' : A % 2

1 VENKATARAYAPPA   
$10. LATE 3\5U1\EiIVEN'1%iATAP1r'A"'-..«
Aem ABOUT 63"~E'EA}3S }    "  %
R/O. NCL134/1, H. 'A, :+; 'P'os-T5 " V  %_ 
WBLOCI5:;'EiEB!3'AL».": *  ; 
BANc;ALQ};§E; « S<a<3<;'::24.    ~  PEFITIONER

{By Sri : Si%1'RE$§.~iAiL  A§:)VO<:ATE)
MB: V T, %  ._ 
1 THE <;:<3:€P:<j§é.g§'i,'mj§&i'«*:§F CITY OF BAN'(.'zA1;.ORE
CORPf)RA'}"'1{3N..VO'FF'i(3E

; E:.a:\:c;A;:,-rpieat -- :2
*<.Bff1"'3'.',S com2;:.1::e:sI0N ER.

   f 'VviI':<1i3:%.é:;§Sis'FAN*r REVENUE GFFICER

3   {ay%:;*:~i'%:  N PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVO(3A'1i'E3)

  <3:*)f}€'.I?(}~.§€:£i'T1(33\I OFFICE
 A M23LLES'HWARAM
 Bs:N::3&A1,::»;2E -03  RESPONDENTS

06*/z<——~

' –_aI1d validity of the documentation of the

'site in qéiezétion. and the respondents afier comsidezciixg

there is no identfiicatiefl cf the 'petitioner's prcigjertjg nor

there is any genuineness with regard to

certificate.

4. 011 the learned
counsel appearing fc19 submits that
sufficient have been
and possession of

the fiiijgesfiien .

In vieiii-» fstated abeve, it would be just

and ” Qietitiener were to appreach the

reégpojidents Z convince them with regard to the

the ~~s:1i:1e shall pass appropriate erders.

0<£g\;…_.

6. For the afbresaid reasans, the p¢é:1i’:tic;iic:¥i§”

furnish 311 such decuments $:hat~hc

13:) establish his titie and p¢’s; seé§[si&§n

resporizilent to i$sue kizétha thé

respond€I1t~(3{)rp0ra£iQn shall’ “zzoriésicier the
Same and pass apprhpriate, .”i):.f’d$Ars. accordance with
law within a {=5-wind <;)i'4§saicek$"£1f;erea§'a;ér.

s&i*%

“1is§?;%- – ”