IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.4050 OF 2016 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.317 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA-CHANNAPATNA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.39, B M ROAD RAMANAGARA-562 159.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI MURTHY DAYANAND NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI N. PRAKASH SON OF SRI M. NANJUNDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/38, 11TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.
2. SMT. N. YASHODHA WIFE OF K.M. MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/38, 11TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.
3. THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHAHUL HAMEED, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & R-2; SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.3279-3280 OF 2016 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT A memo has been filed by the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 stating that subsequent to filing of the Writ Petitions, the sale deeds have been executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the said fact.
2. In view of the same, we do not find it expedient to proceed further in the matter. Hence, these Writ Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-