IN THE HIH CodaT OF kARNATAA AT BA1AL0R3 LA TED THIs TH 4TH LAY 0? JUNE 1998 PR3ST THE HOllBLE MR. H.P. SETHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONBLE MRJUTICE K fi,PFSAD MO WRIT PETITION NO.2458/1992 1, sri siddalingaish, 8/0 sri Lingappa, aged about 62 years, 2, Sri V,Ugrappa, S/o Sri Veenna, aged about 42 years, 3, sri rngappa, 8/o Ch1kkarangapp, Aged about 52 years, 4, sri Narasaju, 3/0 Sri Narasimbaish, aged about 30 years, 5, Sri 5/c 5ri Cbikanarappa, aged about 67 years, ö, 5ri Han antharayapa, aged aDout 3S years, 7 bri tadarepDa, 8/0 zFi Narasappa, aged about 37 years, 8, xi ?arasinthaiah, 8/o Sri Naraeeeyapoa, aged aboit 52 years, .2 ) ‘I’ i32.e petitioners I to 8 are all residents of Ammthagri, Lore Robli, Tuakur teluk and District. P tITIOcSRØ AND:” 1. Belaliara Mandal Pandiayat, Tuakur Taluk by it 8 pitdtfl and Secretary, Deladhare, Tuakur Taluk and District. 2. The Chief Secretary, .Tifla parishat, Tuakur Di strict, Tuakur. 3. Sri M.Basavaiah, Wo Sri Muddaramaiah, aged about 57 years, Resident of Asruthagiri, Lore Hotli, Tuakur Itluk & District. (By $ri K Sreedhar, for 22 and Sri L.N.Vijayashankar, for This Writ Petition filed Constitution of India preying and B dated 26.10.88 and 3. 1. 1992 issued by 21 end 22 respectively. This Writ Petition coming hearing, this day, C.J., made (By Sri R.B.Sadasivappa & Krishna Murthy, Adv) .. RE’0NDMTS 2—3, Advs) Wa 226 & 227 of the to quash Annezures-A bearing No. 1%491—92 and etc on for preliminary the fOl].owing ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing in the case. 2. In this petition filed in Public Interest prayer has been made for quashing of the licence granted to the 3rd respondent for the purpose of construction of building on the schedule land. The action of the respondent is challenged mainly on the ground that the land upon which the building is stated to be raised is not in possession of respondent—3. However in his oblection statement 0 the 3rd respondent has submitted that the land in dispute is his property which he had purchased by means of registered sale deed 3 Annexure—RI, It Is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionersthat the title of the respondent has already been challenged in Civil Court in OS.NO,17/90. The disouted questions of fact regarding the title over the property cannot be adjudicated un by us in the writ proceedings. Once the petitioners have already resorted to the remedy of Civil Suit, they can be given liberty ——4—— 0— of seeking relief cancellation of the licence as a consequential relief in the suit already filed. It is aporehendeduring the interval when the oetition is disoosed of and the suit is amended 1 the respondents ma raise 4- construction and frustrate the relief claimed k4i C by the petitioners. Such an 4ea4ien- exoressed can be taken care of,DrotectinQ the interest 5 of the public as projected in the present writ petition, 3. In the circumstances 1 the writ petition is disposed of by aiving the oetitioners liberty to amend the plaint already fund by way of OS,NO.17/90. by incorporating the consequential relief of setting aside of the ermission/ licence ganted to the(esoondent. Such applicaion if filed shall be considered and disoosed of strictly in accorance with the orovisions of I -i. In case the prayer for amendment of the olaint i’ allowed 1 the Civil Court shall also be ertitled to grant the aoropriate relief by way / of temporary injunction to protect the rights of the parties. The petitioners are allowed one month time to file the apolication for amend ment of the olaint in accordance with aw and in the light of the observations made herein above. If such an aoplication is filed the same shall be disposed off by the Trial Court where the Civil Suit between the narties is pending. The interim dirction issued by this Court in this petition shall continue for a oeriod of one month arid if en application for amendment is filedbe continued till the disposal of _i’. ary)lication / I / c%s . N 6 kp/ 698