In a preliminary hearing, the Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an allotment endorsement. The petitioner undertook to approach the Revisional Authority and waive the third-party allotment, and relief was reserved accordingly.
Petition disposed; liberty reserved to approach Revisional Authority under Section 63 of the Act.
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 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23302 OF 2011 (LB - RES)
Between:
Sri.Kulla Nayak H.B., S/o late Betta Nayak, Dead by his legal Heirs,
2
Petitioners No.1, 3 & 4 are R/at #158, 6th Cross, 2nd Phase, H Block, Ramakrishna Nagara, Mysuru – 570 023.
... Petitioners
(By Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, Advocate appeared through physical hearing)
And:
... Respondents
(By Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, AGA for R1; Sri.S.V.Desai, Advocate for R2; Both are appeared through physical hearing; R3 - service of notice held sufficient)
3
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 19.02.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure – A and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that he would approach the Revisional Authority under Section 63 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and he has further undertaken that he would not press for the site that is already allotted to the third party who is respondent No.3 herein way back in the year 2003.
reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach Revisional Authority under Section 63 of the Act.
4
It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
SD/JUDGE
HJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the site allotment endorsement shall be disposed of on a reading of the undertaking by the counsel without going into merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulla Nayak H.B. (Dead by his legal Heirs)
State of Karnataka
Mysuru Urban Development Authority
H.Mahadevamurthy
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
