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

Chennappa Veerappa Katti, vs State Of Karnataka, on 8 July, 2019

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S.G. Pandit

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF JULY, 2019

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

            WRIT PETI TION NO.65037/2011

                           C/W

        WRTI PETI TION NO.64447/2011(GM-RES)

IN W.P.NO .65037/2011

BETWEEN:

CHENNAPPA VEERAPPA KATTI
S/O LATE VEERAPPA KATTI,
AGED: ABOUT 57 YEARS,
AT 8-9-831 TO 839,
KARWAR GOOTY ROAD, KOPPAL.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.A.B.PA TIL, ADVOCATE
 AND SRI.S .A.H.RAZVI, ADVOCA TE-A BSENT)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

3.     TULSI MUDDINENI,
       DY. COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, KOPPAL.
                            2


4.   MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
     CITY MUNICIPALTY, KOPPAL.

5.   H.B BELLIGATTI,
     MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (RTD.)
     CITY MUNICIPALTY,
     KOPPAL.

6.   SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
     PUBLIC WORKS, M.S. BUILDING,
     BANGALORE.

7.   THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
     KOPPAL.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RA VI V HOSMANI, AGA FOR R1, R2, R6 & R7,
 SRI.J.S .SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
 R3 & R5 ARE S ERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING     TO   DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY
EXEMPLARY COMPENSATION FOR THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION
OF THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER WHICH
WAS    ILLEGALLY DEMOLISHED     ON 27/06/2011. THE
PROPERTIES BEARING M.B.NO.8.9.831 TO 8.9.834 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND PROPERTY BEARING M.B.NO.8.9.835 TO
8.9.839 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.


IN W.P.NO .64447/2011

BETWEEN:

AKHTARUNNISSA BEGUM W/O S.A. KABEER,
AGE: 71 YEARS,
R/O AMEENPURA, KOPPAL.
                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.A.B.PA TIL, ADVOCATE
 AND SRI.S .A.H.RAZVI, ADVOCA TE-A BSENT)
                              3


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
       REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

3.     TULSI MUDDINENI
       DY. COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL.

4.     MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
       CITY MUNICIPALTY, KOPPAL.

5.     H. B. BELLIGATTI
       MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (RTD),
       CITY MUNICIPAL, KOPPAL.

6.     SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. PUBLIC
       WORKS, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

7.     THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
       KOPPAL.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RA VI V HOSMANI, AGA FOR R1, R2, R6 & R7,
 SRI.R.K.KU LKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
 R3 & R5 ARE S ERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING    TO   DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY
EXEMPLARY COMPENSATION FOR THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION
OF THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER WHICH
WAS ILLEGALLY DEMOLISHED ON 27/06/2011 AND ETC.


     THESE  WRIT PETITIONS  COMING  ON         FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING-'B' GROUP THIS DAY,        THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                       4


                                  ORDER

There is no representation for the petitioners in the morning as well as at 3.50 P.M. On 03.06.2019 also there was no representation. To provide an opportunity, the matter was adjourned.

2. The petitioners are claiming compensation for the illegal demolition of the properties belonging to the petitioners which was demolished on 27.06.2011 and for an enquiry for the forgery of document and fraud committed by respondents No.2 and 4.

3. The prayer sought for by the petitioners requires recording of evidence. Looking into the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioners, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. As there is no 5 representation for the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sh