Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.10634/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
RAME GOWDA S/O DASE GOWDA, RESIDING AT THOPPAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (BY SMT. MUBARAK BEGUM S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT RAMANAGARAM – 5621 117.
2 . THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT – 562 117.
3 . DURGAIAH S/O HOMBALLE GOWDA KURIGOWDANA DODDI THUNGANI POST KANAKALPURA TALUK KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
4 . RAJESH S/O DURGAIAH RESIDING AT KURIGOWDANA ...PETITIONER DODDI, THUNGANI POST KANAKAPURA TALUK KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
5 . DUNDAMMA W/O KULLEGOWDA KURIGOWDANA DODDI THUNGANI POST KANAKAPURA TALUK KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
6 . CHINNAIAH FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN THOPPAGANAHALLI VILLAGE THUNGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
7 . KRISHA S/O CHINNAIAH THOPPAGANAHALLI VILLAGE THUNGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
8 . SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O CHINNAIAH (GRAND SON OF DUNDAMMA) KURIGOWDANA DODDI THUNGANI POST KANAKAPURA TALUK KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
9 . SURESH S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA KURIGOWDANA DODDI THUNGANI POST KANAKAPURA TALUK KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
R-3, R-4, R-6, R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESNTED; SRI. M. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-8;
V/O DATED:17.11.2019 NOTICE TO R-9 H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS VIZ., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT AND THE TAHSILDAR, KANAKAPURA TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED:13.06.2018 AND 19.06.2018 PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who claims to have been granted land on 26.05.1984, is before this Court seeking direction to second respondent to consider his representation dated 13.06.2018-Annexure-A whereunder he has sought for fixing the boundary stones.
2. Perusal of case papers would disclose that even according to petitioner respondent No.2 had fixed the boundary stones earlier and same had been removed by neighbouring owners, which resulted in filing civil suit and in obtaining order of perpetual injunction. Yet, grievance of petitioner seems to have not been redressed by considering the representation 13.06.2018-Annexure-A. Hence, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider his representations.
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >