i.. / a IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA....U•TAKA AT BINGALORE Dated this the 26th Day of May 1998 BEFORE THE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANERASHEKARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO 1689/1997 Between: Janab S.Mahamnad, aged 69 years, S/o,Urnm 8 re Scary, Saravu, Kodapadavu, Veerakarnbha Village 0 Bantwal Tq, D.K, ,,.PflIflONJ.R (By Sri.Isnwara ahet P., AdV.) And: i. The State, represented by its Sectetary, Dept. of Rural development and Panchayath Raj, M.5.Building, Bangalore. 2, The Secretary, Veerakarribha Gram Panchayat, dantwal Tq, D,K, 3, The AsstCOUmissiOner, Mangalore, US, ,,,RESPONLENTS icy cri,n.Nagaraja, nCisP for r4 o a—ia ari,K,R,Subramanpa Ran 5 Adv, for R—2) Th.is Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of thi. Constitution of: India with a prayer to quatt vide hr ‘cu erA dated 17,4.19 6 vi e Anxexure—B ated 6. .95 ard vide Arncxue—C d t d 0.1 .96 y — fli vritrettio cerigo fri lix H caring in B rou Ui’ day, tie ‘ u t rade th folio dog, 1Db fl p ii ax ng N rn’d Con or’tr c. I 1- 16, r r t it e e n or 3/1 B1 ‘e1 for buildi tcr s t wner xe Land I ic.ubntt by 1€ t nattonert t e or i I md r t i meesry e ixta P r 1 w U x, c f C r r r a a S —3— ihe Assis ant Cani issioer cii issed the appeal confirming the order of the Crania P rchaytth 1 These orders are under challenge. The drama ancha— y h r thor t levy the ne ilty has to say in wuich year the petitioner has constructed the building withou obtaining ne ash iry licence a requi ed under the act and the rules which were in force From the notice issued by the Gxama Pa cha at and frcr t order o t P i ant Commissioner, I do not find in which year the pe itione has constructed the building without ob aining ne ess ry Ii enc r ui ad under the act and the rults wnicn were in force row th watkce tswied by ,tfritnt aaaiayflA ed tow t* qaEes ot tb-S-steniG tseeer Ide not ffld s-wØets ytYaa- $flpe txn tweceiwtucted tW tnrbldinw 54 By iv Sy tkI4S e&4 etrpcti n i flccntrewtv itj,jzpvjs4pj c$ I aWWhiCflt W&t& 2fl t flee e ow c r cd t .4 —4— for the Orarna Panchayath suhuitted thätg the licence produced by the petitioner in respect of two buildings have nothing to do with the building said to have been existing in Sy.No.213/IBI, This aspect alao has not been consjdared by the Assistant Cnissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore in my opinion, the matter requires re—consideration by the drama Panchayeth itself, ifl the results I pass the following order. 3. The Writ Petition is aliowd, The order of the drama Panchayath nnexure—B and the order of the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure ‘C’ are quashed. The matter is remitted to. the Crania Panchayath to re—consider afresh after due notice to the petitioner. sps/*