Rama S/O Late Ningaiah vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 1 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rama S/O Late Ningaiah vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 1 August, 2008

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

_ 2. 4'l"HEuS'1'A'PE' of' KARHATAKA,

   .09 THE coxusqé-s'ru1*zo1~z.o¥«' INBIA,» PRAYING TO QUAS-H THE
"  "E'i'-WIRE. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE mas? RESPONDENP
.c0mn~:A'r11~zG IN THE IMPUGNEQ N{)TIFICA'l'§ON DT. 13.6.1990
 __"'~ANi§lEXURE - 0 AND I-MPUGNED ORDER ore' SPECIAL DEPUTY
0 "-.C_;_OMMISSIONER, URBAN LAND CEILING UT. 31.3.2990 AT
" ANNEXURE - [3 IN UIA 2205/75-77 AND consmqunmv nnzscr

1

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKTAT
AT BANGALORE    
Dated this the 1» dayoraugust, 2003* 1'   

mm nonrnw an JUSTICE Dz'? 
Writ Pgtition No. Iof ££.JLC3i    

RAMA
s/0 LATE NINGAIAI-I,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, _ .
RESIDENT on HOO'i"AGALL.i;  _- 

MYSORE. PETITION ER

1. T1-03 s§>'E_c1_A:i;':05;PLIifY1..::0MM1ss1oa;ER,
uRBANLAND,VcE1LtNG%-,_    - ' " 0'
MYs0s2p;.'0 _ " A  

., REP. V SY__'I'I'S' s'Ec.E.§'rA-RY_'r*o _GOV_'1'_.
. . 'URBAN z;.1;vEL0PMEm'DEI>ARmEr¥r,
'   1.M.:s_, BL}H..E)1NGS, '
 BMtGALQR.E..~=  RESPONDENTS

-M-. HCGP} 'I'HIS 3~W"RI'I' PETITION 18 -FILED UNDER Ai?I'i-CLES 226 AND _.. W6l1 ordér.V--.. AsA:a consgqggence, the petitioner has f€}1;«.rt§}S;toraﬁon of the_ excess land maasuring 2 % jIfIoE)Iiu,44"i%{.3.?' 3;)I4(=:4 Vta}.ul( and distzict 2 THE R1'I'O RES'I'O¥€E Tm: LAND IN QUESTION v:z., SY.NO. 12 or i-IGOTAGALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE on REVENUE RECORDS AND THIS PE'I'I'I'ION comma ON F01-1' HEARING, THIS ::5}\*.?.';j'1f§>2.,s3, coum' MADE THE FOLLOWING; - - - '- V. j__ I. 9---3---"'-----3 % ' *.

Petitioner was a declarant the provisions of Urban Land: , 1975 [for short, 1976 Act]. R

2. The petitioner is taken under the 1976 dated 13-

6- 1990 31-8-1990 1Axmexu;w;cg_;§] §2 L2H_(i:5 1976-7'7 passed by W D¢i3utr«f % 1 .%M>'s°m.; disufict» Mysém Petitioncr of the notiﬁcation as Kasaba 4_ the Ms Asha M Kumbamgelimath, Picador _appearing for the petition and the records, points out that « '2t;i;:::ijl: 'posseesion of e1;eese1_and_ had been over by 3

3. sri M R o.\'i39YakEI1'9,ar,o, Jeamwl come:

petitiorwr, Hsubmits that in terms of the _ [ceiling 8soeRc.gu1a1i0:;],l?9p¢a__1'%Act, 1999 '\ Act], if any was abates as per Section of proceeding had taken" Act in accordance with law; 'over of Hpossession of the land is not the petitioner continues Land and law the 1999 under the 1976 And; 5 petition should be given suitable reference to the statement of objections 9/ .__It open to the petitioner to seek any court, based on posseseory and i on.' can call in -jaattxtory V"'~..«.._'provisioneA terms of the 1999 Act or any declaration of 4 the authorities even as earlier as on 8-8-1990; that no proceeding nemains etc.

5. Learned counsel for the pe1:itioI_1er,=_ joins the aspect of " "

that the procedure for _ followed properly. [V K p VA

6. A disputed question of ihsﬁssion is not a matter which _a. satisfactory resolution in wiit. reason, this writ the petitioner is he still continues to be in to the petitioner to seek relief based on his current V} 5 law' mm %b¥mt*1i$ any of the Pmvisivns or this Act. while ¥'e¥iefb¢f°I'e the civil 7- Whoa: vr vJudiw writ petition is dismissed. V __ V'

8. Interim order, if favour of the petitioner it}. eﬂmtg to their beneﬁt for a period of % .:_ A 1%3"sd-'-3°

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court