Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed to restrain possession and demolition were dismissed as withdrawn upon a memo filed by petitioners' counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.53864-53867 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
2
Bangalore 560 079.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri Satish M Doddamani, Advocate)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Vijaykumar A Patil, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri K. Tharanath Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to restrain the respondents or anybody claiming under them from dispossessing the
3
petitioners from their properties or demolishing their homes constructed on their properties which are more fully described in the schedule of writ petition.
These Writ Petitions coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioners have filed a memo
seeking to withdraw the petitions.
The memo is taken on record and the petitions are
dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A.1/2015 for amendment stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
Manjunath
Rajamma
Savitha
Siddlingamma
The State of Karnataka
Bangalore Development Authority
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
