Karnataka High Court
Manohar Parashuram Kamu vs The Commissioner Belgaum Urban ... on 21 November, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.16900/2005(LB-RES)
A/W WRIT PETITION NO.14934/2005
IN MFA NO.16900/2005
BETWEEN:
1. MANOHAR PARASHURAM KAMU
S/O PARASHURAM KAMU
52 YEARS R/O H NO 614/C, PLOT # 101
RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANGOL, BELGAUM
2. RUKMINI W/O BHAVAKANNA SULAGEKAR
55 YRS, R/O H NO 621, PLOT # 102
RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANGOL BELGAUM
3. SHANTA W/O BHAU MALHARCHE,
50 YEARS R/O H # 622, PLOT # 103
RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANGOL, BELGAUM
4. NAGESH SIDDAPPA MUCHANDIKAR
S/O SIDDAPPA MUCHANDIKAR
62 YEARS, R/O H NO 624/4, PLOT # 105
RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANGOL, BELGAUM
5. VIJAY S/O NARAYAN AMBARSET
65 YEARS, R/O H NO 626,
PLOT 107 PART
RAJAHANSA GALLI ANGOL, BELGAUM
6. DEVAKKA APPAYYA LOHAR KANBARKAR
W/O APPAYYA LOHAR
70 YEARS, R/O H NO 627
PLOT # 108 RAJAHANSA GALLI,
2
ANGOL, BELGAUM
7. JOTIBA S/O BABU YALLURKAR
65 YEARS, R/O H NO 632, PLOT # 109
RAJAHANSA GALLI ANGOL, BELGAUM
8. ANANDA KRISHNA YALLURKAR
S/O KRISHNA YALLURKAR
60 YEARS, R/O RAJAHANSA GALLI
H NO 633, PLOT # 110
ANGOL, BELGAUM
9. DHONDIRAM B PAWAR S/O B PAWAR
AGE 62 YRS R/O H NO 634/A
PLOT # 111, RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
10. RAMACHANDRA YELLAPPA HASBE
S/O YELLAPPA HASBE
70 YEARS R/O H NO 635
PLOT # 112, RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
11. ARUN NAGAPPA KHANDEKAR
S/O NAGAPPA KHANDEKAR
50 YEARS R/O H NO 638, PLOT # 113
RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANGOL
BELGAUM
12. MARUTI SADU LAMANACHE
S/O SADU LAMANACHE
AGE 52 YRS R/O H NO 637
PLOT # 114, RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
13. GANGABAI GURUSIDDAPPA JAKATI
W/O GURUSIDDAPPA JAKATI
51 YEARS R/O H NO 639, PLOT # 115
RAJAHANSA GALLI ANGOL, BELGAUM
14. JINAPPA LAXMAN SHAHAPURKAR
S/O LAXMAN SHAHAPURKAR
AGED 42 YEARS, R/OF H.NO.640/1,
3
PLOT NO.116, RAJAHANSA GALLI,
ANGOL, BELGAUM
15. ASHOK YALLAPPA JADHAV
S/O YALLAPPA JADHAV
AGED 42 YEARS,
R/OF H.NO.641, PLOT NO.117 PART,
RAJAHANSA GALLI, ANGOL,
BELGAUM
16. PARVATIBAI NEMINATH SURUTEKAR
S/O NEMINATH SURUTEKAR
AGED 65 YEARS, R/OF H.NO.642/1A,
PLOT NO.117 PART, RAJAHANSA GALLI,
ANGOL, BELGAUM
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, BELGAUM
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.A. HULYAL, Advocate FOR R1.
SRI. K.S. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-1 DT.5-5-2005 VIDE ANN.A. AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.14934/2005
BETWEEN
1. PHIROJ KASHIM KAGAJI
4
S/O.KASHIM KAGAJI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O.RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
2. HAMIDABI
W/O.ABDUL HAMID MULLA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O.RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
3. SHANKARRAO LAXMAN SANDIWADEKAR
S/O.LAXMAN SANDIWADEKAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O.RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
4. NARAYANA HANMANT LATUKAR
S/O.HANMANT LATUKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O.RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
5. NARAYANA SATAPPA PAWAR
S/O.SATAPPA PAWAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O.RAJAHANSA GALLI
ANGOL, BELGAUM
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. M.M. KHANNUR, Advocate)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY BELGAUM
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDINGS
5
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-01
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.M.A. HULYAL, Advocate FOR R1
SRI. K.S. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 5.5.2005
VIDE ANNEX.A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Belgaum Urban Development Authority issued Notification dated 5.5.2005 inviting applications for allotment of sites.
2. The petitioners herein have made representations vide Annexures "B" requesting the authorities not to disturb Sy.No.40, as there is no other road, the petitioners and others are using the said way for ingress and egress and there is threat of dispossession of the petitioners. The said representation has not been considered by the respondents. 6
3. Learned counsel for the authority submitted that if some time is granted, their representation would be considered.
4. In the light of the submission made by the respective counsel, this Court feels it appropriate to issue direction to the authority to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 10/01/2005 Annexure "B" within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, petitions stand disposed of. Till consideration of the representation of the petitioners, possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed.
SD/-
JUDGE.
Kmv