Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri N Sathish vs The Tahasildar on 15 February, 2017

Author: Ravi Malimath

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                         -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          ON THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

       WRIT PETITION NO.30979/2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI N SATHISH
       S/O NARAYANA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEAS

2.     SMT ROOPA
       W/O N SATHISH
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

       BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
       KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
       NEAR MURUGESHAPALYA,
       AIRPORT ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI
       BANGALORE EAST TALUK
                                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI:HARISH GANAPATHY, ADV (ABSENT))


AND:

1.     THE TAHASILDAR
       BANGALORE EAST TALUK
       K R PURAM BANGALORE

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE EAST TALUK
       BANGALORE
                         -2-




3.   THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
     BANGALORE

4.   SRI T VASUDEVAIAH
     S/O THIMMAIAH REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     R/O NO.634, 1ST MAIN ROAD
     4TH CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA
     BANGALORE-560075

5.   SRI RAVI REDDY
     S/O T VASUDEVAIAH
     AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.143/1,
     5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MALLESHPALYA
     BANGALORE-560075
                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI:T S MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO 3,
     SRI:C S HASHIM SAEED, ADV FOR R4)


      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED
16.09.2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J HOLDING THE
SAME AS EXCESSIVE OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION;
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO TAKE BACK THE
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE HANDS OF
THE RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 WHO ARE NOW USING
THE SAME AS THEIR TENANTS VEHICLE PARKING AREA BY
FORCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY RESPECT TO THE COURT'S
ORDER IN O.S.NO.26220/2010 DATED 04.08.2010 AND
ETC.,


    THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-




                         ORDER

When the matter was called on 14.02.2017, there was no representation for the petitioners. Today also, none appears. It appears that petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this petition.

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE *bgn/-