Parthasarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Parthasarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2009

Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT BANGALuGl§E'._V

omen) THIS THE 10"' my OF NOVEMBER.:j2'0O9;~.i if  _

THE HON'BLE MR.P.D.DINA KARAN, 

PRESENT   

THE HON'BLE Mmusfrxge M.O'HﬁLN:' NTANAeo'uoAR

WRIT PETITION :99;90$2/zpow..(Lé::éEs--P1L)

BETWEEN:

1.

Paﬁhasaﬁ1ﬁ.. {I V

S/0 Ve1yikat~3.1fé%;maafi;i"Sh
Aged 42 years;   

R/at.37.43', 41 1"h_     " 
Thilakanagar. Mysoiwg.' _  '

Puttaraju.

. . y S/(_)"~fha:At1adaiah"" 
" -Aged 4'}'7y'<3airs
' 3\IO:353--5.' <1 S*'.C'r0._ss.

'  -._'I'hi_Tlakn éiggf ~ . V V 

 V 3.
V-<.__V'-».S/0 Pépgiana
' --,Ag<:d_ 45 years

Mysore. '

Somlashékaréa

 'No_.37i'75, 13th Cross

  Thilalmagar
 Mysore.



' "  _ Dept. omrban Development

_. V Mysore. 

1
[U
1

Chandrashekar

S/o late M.Shankar Rao
Aged 40 years,

R/at. 3719, 12*" Cross,
Thilaknagar,

Mysore.

Siddaraju,

S / 0 Papanna

Aged 46 years

R/ at No.3475, 401 Main,
Thilaknagar,

Mysore.

Raju

S / o Madappa
Aged 38 years A. . ., _ 
R/at No.35/2M.,.y2*1d_Crgjss " 
Thilaknagar.    i '"'
Mysore.  

Padmav, ....  _  _ *::;:_   
D / 0 late Puttaswaniy , "
Aged 40 years '  , Vt 
No. 15, 3rd Main', _ "  .
NeW--Ma}ofB1o<;k V' _
Bamboo Bazar, w 

V " .. Petitioners

,{  Advocate )

State ofttfiarnatatka

 M,s'.Bu:1ding,
 'Dr.'E3;'R.Ambedkar Road

Bar1galore- I

  -«By its Secretary.



 V'  . 'ed 3,2,ye~a.rs

:3" V'

_ 3 _
The Mysore Urban Development
Authority,
Janey Lakshmi Bai Road
Mysore~ 1 ,
By its Commissioner.

. Mysore City Corporation

New Sayyaji Rao Road
Mysore-- 1 .
By its Commissioner.

. Manoj P. Kothan'

S/o C.R.Parasma3
Aged 37 years.

Babitha M. Koihari,
W/o Majoj P. Kothari
Aged 35 years

' Responderiigs é1¥__a;r1d   «_  *

R/at. I.\Io«.?.93ﬁ  ._
Geetha Maridir..Road y 
Lashkar 1'./Io11a_{1af"-»., "  
MY%ore+3. " ' " 

Vino.r1_B. Ko'1':h_ari,. 
S/,.0.{Budhmal Kotyhariév

Sarigeei1j1.a»eV..._Kothari

" W',¥.o"iV;BL';<:Qth;ar1

Aged so years

 Respondents 6 81 7 are

R/ at. NCL325,

 " Baridigowcia Layout

'  .Mau'dya.

.. Respondents



-4-

[ By Sri P.S.i\/Ianjunath, Advocate for R-2.
Sri H.C.ShiVaramu, Advocate for R-3,
M.S.Rajendraprasad & Associates, for R-4, ..  
K.Suryaprakash Rao, Advocate for R-6 to R-7  l » l '
And Sri B.Veerappa, AGA for R-1 J 

This Writ Petition is filed under ieirtig-iesTii225'a§ '2:>}7 
Constitution of India praying to direct«.responderits"1 to 
retain the excess marginal land-.__aVailable adjac'c.nt..v_to _.:site , *

No.15, measuring 81.5 x l16+96{8.__/2. situated"-;at=, Bamboo
Bazar Road, Bannirnantap Devaraj Movhalula. lViys_ore. '

This Writ Petition 'cA:ofr;.ing.':on.hea1fing on this day,
MORAN SHANTANAGOUDAR,  ' delivered_ the fol1ow1'ng:-

   * by it
This     the  praying for
a directiontovg"  to retain the excess
marginal   to site No.15, measuring

81.5 X 1163+" " at Bamboo Bazar Road,

_BanniIna.'ntap, Deyaziajv Mohalla, Mysore. According to the

in Aipetitioneicsllbldthe.said marginal land is not allotted to anybody or

is iyroiiigly favor of one Syed Rasool by the then

V VVMysore'"City_'dlnigirovernent Trust Board and that therefore, the

 land is w to be retained as this is vacant land for the

  -of public at large.

iv»



2. We do not find any reason to grant the prayer the

petitioners, inasmuch as, the entire extent of thee

including the so called marginal land, was   '

building site in favour of Syed Rasool,..Tf'in1ber'l\/Ierelfiarit,Vlhlewrgp uh'

Bamboo Bazar, Mysore, for the purpose of ibuilding 

thereon for certain consideration the theni"v_l\/iyjsverey City 2 L'

Improvement Trust Board as    1954.
The sanie is clear from "atp»v..lA;'A\ir1nexure--'A' to the
Writ petition. If it__is  have any
grievance,   Syed Rasool
became owner  question as back as on
271121 August'   55 years prior to this
day. Said  '~ property in favour of the

contesting,respondents herein: subsequently and consequently

they  abecerne  of the said property. Since the

  vested with the predecessor in title of the

l  ._contestirig respondents herein, the petitioners cannot contend

 the property in question belongs to the Mysore City

 ln£p1'oyere.ent Trust Board and that therefore, the property

  be retained as it is by the Board. As the ownership is

V/'\



-6"

conveyed as back as in the year 1954 in favour of Syed Rasool,

the property in question cannot be termed as 

belonging to the public or to the City ImproVe1';1ent";£'1'ui:s:t. '

(i.e., the present Mysore Urban Development   x

Accordingly, the writ petition and 

dismissed.

  

      :sd/-
 ....

Index: Y.e$/ V' ,,,,,...v,Web H.O§t: Yes,/.No--_. arrbk/n

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Parthasarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2009

Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar