1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

W.P.No.18696/2021 [LB]

BETWEEN:

Gopal Krishna Chartitable Trust …Petitioner

AND:

Mysore Urban Development

Authority and Others …Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE

That for the reasons stated in the accompanying

affidavit, the Petitioner above named pray that this Hon’ble

Court to be pleased to take up the above matter on Board

for Early Hearing, in the interest of justice.

Bangalore

Dated: 18/03/2024 Adv. for Petitioner

 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

W.P.No.18696/2021 [LB]

BETWEEN:

Gopal Krishna Chartitable Trust …Petitioner

AND:

Mysore Urban Development

Authority and Others …Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sri. R. Sanjay Goel, S/o M.Ramesh Chandra, Aged

about 66 years (previously Sri R.Sanjay Kumar), R/at
No.17/A, 5th Cross, Vivekananda Road, Yadvagiri, Mysuru –
570 020, today at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the authorised by the Petitioner-trust and I know

the facts of the case. I’m authorised to swear to this
affidavit. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit.

2. The Petitioner is a registered public trust registered on

30/11/1993. The petitioner - Trust was allotted a site under
the Karnataka Planning Authorities (Allotment of Civic
amenity sites) Rules, 2016 on 20.07.1994 and possession
was handed over on 24.09.2001 and the petitioners have
been in correspondence with regard to construction in the
property.
3. On 03.07.2021, without issuing any notice to the
petitioners, the allotment made on 20.07.1994 is cancelled
without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

4. The last of the notice that was issued to show cause

as to why the cancellation should not be made was in the
year 2011.
 3

5. When things stood thus, the respondents issued a

notice/order directing me to vacate the premises and I have
challenged the same before this Hon’ble Court in the instant
writ petition. After hearing the case at length this Hon’ble
court was pleased pass an Interim order consequent to the
impugned order dated 23/07/2021, until further orders.

6. Now, the respondent on multiple occasions, along with

his associates have approached my property and are trying
to interfere with my peaceful possession of the said
property by threatening and harassing me. They demand
that the trust vacate the said premises or they will bulldoze
and demolish the said property even after being aware of
the fact that there is an existing interim order of stay of the
impugned order.

7. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances,

the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to take up the
above matter for early hearing and dispose the same. If
the matter is taken up on Board for Early Hearing, no
hardship will be caused to the respondents.

WHEREFORE, I pray accordingly.

I do hereby declare that what is stated above is true

and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.

Identified by me

Advocate Deponent
Bangalore
Date: 18/03/2024
No. of corrections:
 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION No. 19315/2021 [KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVASA & ANOTHER - PETITIONERS

A N D:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS

MEMO

Herein the memo on behalf of the petitioner is as

under:

That the petitioner herewith produces the following

documents pertaining to the property in question. The same
may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and
equity.

List of documents

1. Photos of building under construction.

2. Sanction plan.

Bengaluru

Date: 26/08/2022 Advocate for Petitioners

 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION No. 19315/2021 [KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVASA & ANOTHER - PETITIONERS

A N D:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS

MEMO

The Counsel for the petitioners herewith seeks

permission to produce the below mentioned Citations for
 6

the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. This memo maybe

allowed and the same be taken on record in the interest of
justice.

CITATIONS

1) ILR 2020 KAR 4127

2) WRIT PETITION NO. 209/2020 (KLR-RES)

3) ILR 2005 KAR 60

4) ILR 1997 KAR 67

Bengaluru

Date: 08/03/2022 Advocate for Petitioners

 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

MEMO FOR POSTING

Case No. W.P.NO.19315/2021

Classification ; KLR-RES

Petitioner/ Srinivas & Anr

Appellant
Respondent : The State &Ors

Single Bench/ Single Bench

Division Bench
Roster Judge/s Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Devdas
Fresh or Old Fresh

Category Writ petition (KLR-RES)

Date of the dated 10/08/2021 ANNEXURE-K

impugned order
Memo, if any filed No.
earlier
Urgency The Petitioner is owner of the property
(To be explained in bearing No.95 in Amruthahalli village
not more than 5 which comes under BBMP limits.
lines However the Tahsildar by virtue of
Annexure-K is trying to dispossess the
Petitioners herein.
In fact, this Hon’ble Court was pleased
to grant interim stay on 09/02/2022,
yet the Tahsildar and his henchmen
i.e., some men with vested interests
are trying to dispossess the
Petitioners.
It is further submitted that, the
Petitioner herein has filed an
application for amendment of the
petition. Therefore its is necessary
that the matter is taken upon board
for preliminary hearing. Hence, the
memo.
Request Dates of `29/09/2022
listing
Bengaluru
Dated: 28/09/2022 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS
E-Mail :crgopalswamy@gmail.com (BHARGAV.G)
 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION No. /2021 [KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVASA & ANOTHER - PETITIONERS

A N D:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
SYNOPSIS

Sl. No. Dates Events

1. 08/03/2006 The third respondent has executed

registered sale deed in favour of first
petitioner, in respect of property in
question. By virtue of sale deed,
HakkuPatra has been issued.

2. 08/12/2010 Khata was registered in the name of

petitioner No.1 by the BBMP and
thereafter petitioner No.1 has paid
taxes to the concerned authority.

3. 06/07/2018 The third respondent has issued a

notice under Section 104 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act calling
upon the petitioner No.1 to submit
the records.

4. 16/07/2018 Petitioner No.1 has submitted his

reply to the third respondent to the
notice issued under Section 104 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
 9

5. 04/09/2018 Once again, third respondent issued

a notice stating that why the
HakkuPatra should not be cancelled
as the petitioner No.1 has violated
condition No.3 and also further
calling upon the petitioner No.1 to
submit his statement in writing
within 7 days from the date of notice
which is impugned herein.

6. 10/09/2018 Petitioner No.1 has submitted

detailed reply to the notice issued by
the third respondent.

7. 19/09/2018 Aggrieved by the notice dated

04/09/2018 passed by the third
respondent-Tahsildar herein, the
petitioner No.1 herein filed a Writ
Petition vide No.42151/2018.

8. 28/02/2020 This Hon’ble Court has allowed the

writ petition and thereby directed
the third respondent-Tahsildar to
consider the objections filed by the
first petitioner dated 10/09/2018 in
accordance with law and further
directed that till consideration of the
objections and passing appropriate
orders, the first petitioner shall not
be dispossessed from the property in
question.

9. 30.03.2021 After completion of the period of

fifteen years from the date of
execution of the sale deed, the first
petitioner has sold the property in
favour of the second petitioner.
 10

10. 10/08/2021 without giving opportunity of

hearings, the third respondent has
passed an order and thereby
rejected the representation of the
first petitioner dated
10/09/2018Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners presents this
Memorandum of writ petition.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is in

unauthorized occupation of Sy.No.95 of Amruthahalli Village,
measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 40 Feet.
The petitioner No.1 and others have requested the
Government of Karnataka to regularize their unauthorized
occupation of the property. After considering their request,
the second respondent has converted certain lands and
issued HakkuPatra. In fact, HakkuPatra has been issued by
virtue of registered sale deed executed by the third
respondent after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.88656/-.
Thereafter property comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP
and they have issued a khata certificate and petitioner No.1
has paid the taxes to the concerned authority. Such being the
matter, pressurized by vested interestees and politically
motivated persons who are inimical towards the petitioners,
the third respondent has issued a notice under Section 104 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act for which, the petitioner No.1
has replied. Thereafter no proceedings has taken place. After
some time, once again, the third respondent issued a notice
calling upon the petitioner to submit his statement in writing
within 7 days along with documents failing which, action will
be taken for cancellation of HakkuPatra. Thereafter petitioner
No.1 has submitted his written reply. In spite of that, the
 11

third respondent is making hectic efforts to dispossess the

petitioners on one or other pretext for the reasons best known
to him. In fact, the sale deed has been executed after receipt
of sale consideration and HakkuPatra has been issued and
property comes within the administration of BBMP and they
have issued khata and petitioner No.1 has paid taxes to the
concerned authority. Such being the matter, third
respondent has no locus standi to issue such notice which is
illegal and unsustainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner No.1 has filed a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble
Court vide W.P.No.42151/2018. In the said writ petition, the
respondents appeared and contested the matter. Finally, this
Hon’ble Court has allowed the writ petition vide Order dated
28/02/2020 and thereby directed the third respondent-
Tahsildar to consider the objections filed by the first
petitioner dated 10/09/2018 in accordance with law and
further directed that till consideration of the objections and
passing appropriate orders, the first petitioner shall not be
dispossessed from the property in question.Such being the
matter, all of a sudden, without giving opportunity of
hearings, the third respondent has passed an order dated
10/08/2021 and thereby rejected the representation of the
first petitioner dated 10/09/2018 which is illegal and
unsustainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
presents this Memorandum of writ petition.

Bengaluru
Dated: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION No. /2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:
1. SRI SRINIVASA
S/o Sri Venkatesh
Aged about 54years
Residing at No.95
Khata No.1891/95
Amruthahalli Village
Amruthanagar
Sahakarnagar Post
Bengaluru-560 092

2. SMT. S.M. CHAMUNDESHWARI

W/o. Sri Subramaniyam
Aged about 56 years
R/at No.43, 4th Main Road
Hanumanthappa Layout
Sultanpalya, R.T. Nagar
Bengaluru-560 032 - PETITIONERS

A N D:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Department of Revenue
Represented by its Principal Secretary
VidhanaSoudha
Dr.AmbedkarVeedhi
Bengaluru-560 001

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Bengaluru Urban District
K.G. Road
Bengaluru-560 001

3. THE TAHSILDAR
YelahankaTaluk
Mini VidhanaSoudha
Yelahanka
Bengaluru-560 064 - RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

The petitioner above named submits as follows:

 13

1. That being aggrieved by the Orderdated10/08/2021

passed by the third respondent-Tahsildarhereinvide Case
No.94CC/CR/63/2018-19 rejecting the request of the
petitioners dated 10/09/2018, the petitioner herein presents
this Memorandum of Writ Petition following among other facts
and grounds.
BRIEF FACTS

2. The first petitioner is the absolute owner in possession

and enjoyment of the house property bearing No.95, Khata
No.1891/95 measuring East to West:30 Feet and North to
South:40 Feet, situated at Amruthahalli Village,
YelahankaHobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, presently under the
administration of Bruhat Bengaluru MahanagaraPalike, Ward
No.7. Sector ‘C’, Amruthahalli, Sahakarnagar Post,
Bengaluru-560 092 which is more fully described under the
schedule and hereinafter referred to as the ‘Schedule
Property.’ Somewhere in the year 2004-05, the first
petitioner and similarly placed shelter less persons had put
up unauthorized constructions for their dwelling and together
all the unauthorized dwellers requested the Government of
Karnataka for re-conveying the said property in favour of
them. Considering the said request, the then Government
passed an order converting the said land for the purpose of
residential use as occupied by the respective occupants and
has sold the property subject to certain terms and conditions.
As far as thefirst petitioner concerned, the Government has
issued a HakkuPatra (Deed of title) vide
No.94C/NA/Yelahanka-3/CR-2285/2004-05. Prior to
issuance of the said HakkuPatra, the registered sale deed is
executed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk(Addl.),
Yelahanka, Bengaluru in favour of the first petitioner herein
in respect of the Sy.No.95 of Amruthahalli village, measuring
East-West:30 ft. and North-South:40 ft. vide Document
No.YAN-1-16298/2005-06, registered in the office of the Sub-
 14

registrar, Yelahanka, dated 08/03/2006. Copies of the sale

deed and HakkuPatra are produced herewith and marked as
ANNEXURES-A & B respectively. While re-conveying the said
site, the Government has received a sale consideration of
Rs.88656/- from the first petitioner and put him in
possession of the property. Thereafter the first petitioner’s
name was reflected in the encumbrance certificate and
register of the local authority. As of now, the property is
situated within the Administration of the BBMP, the Khata
certificate and assessed the property for tax purpose. Copies
of the Khata Certificate and tax paid receipt are produced
herewith and marked as ANNEXURES-C & D respectively.

3. Such being the matter, third respondent herein has

issued a notice under Section 104 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 stating that the first petitioner has
unauthorisedly occupied the Kharab land attached to
property bearing Sy.No.95 and in that regard the revenue
inspector has submitted a report and therefore called upon
the first petitioner to appear before him on 12/02/2018 by
3:00 PM. and further to show cause why the criminal case
should not be initiated against him for having unauthorisedly
encroached the Government land for which, the first
petitioner has replied on 16/07/2018 and the third
respondent has received the same and acknowledged the
receipt of the same. Copies of the notice dated 06/07/2018
issued by the third respondent and reply of the petitioner are
produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURES-E & F
respectively.

4. After receiving the reply, it appears the third respondent

has considered his case and dropped the proceedings against
the first petitioner in pursuantto his notice vide annexure-E.
But after three months later, yet another notice dated
04/09/2018 was issued, the subject matter was
 15

encroachment of one acre of land in Sy.No.95 belonging to the

Government. But contents of the notice of the third
respondent states that out of one acre land in Sy.No.95, the
second respondent-Deputy Commissioner has issued a
temporary order and HakkuPatra subject to certain terms and
conditions but the first petitioner has violated the condition
NO.3 in the HakkuPatra that the property re-conveyed/sold
to the first petitioner is being used for the purpose other than
the purpose of residence and therefore it is against to the
terms of re-conveyance. They further stated that the first
petitioner has violated the conditions by letting out the
premises for Hair Cutting saloon and let out the premises for
rent. Therefore he called upon the first petitioner why the
HakkuPatra issued in favour of the first petitioner should not
be cancelled and further called upon him to answer within
seven days with the documents failing which necessary action
will be taken. The first petitioner has replied the said notice
by his reply dated 10/09/2018 and thereby denied the
allegations. On the other hand, contended that he is the
occupants of the premises but whenever he was away from
the premises, a Barber has unauthorisedly occupied the same
but has agreed to vacate the same. However, he has not
vacated but dodging the issue from time to time. Copies of the
show cause notice dated 04/09/2018 and reply dated
10/09/2018 are produced herewith and marked as
ANNEXURES-G & H respectively.

5. It is submitted that the third respondent was not

justified in his acts as the allegations made in his notices
were totally inconsistentand contrary to the actual position.
Since the first petitioner had the threat of unlawful
dispossession/eviction, having no other alternative
efficacious remedy, he has approached this Hon’ble Court by
filing W.P. No.42151/2018(KLR-RES) for the relief of
quashing Annexure-G herein dated 04/09/2018 and also for
 16

a direction to the respondents not to harass the first

petitioner on one or other pretext. In the said writ petition,
the respondents appeared and contested the matter. Finally,
this Hon’ble Court has allowed the writ petition vide Order
dated 28/02/2020 and thereby directed the third respondent-
Tahsildar to consider the objections filed by the first
petitioner as per Annexure-H dated 10/09/2018 in response
to the impugned notice and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. It is further directed that till
consideration of the objections and passing appropriate
orders, the first petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the
property in question. Copy of the order passed by this Hon’ble
Court is produced herewith at Annexure-J.In spite of clear
directions from this Hon’bleCourt, the respondents have not
taken any steps to consider the representation of the first
petitioner. On the other hand, the third respondent used to
visit the site and used to threaten the first petitioner with
dispossession and dismantling of the structures.

6. In the meantime, after completion of the period of fifteen

years from the date of execution of the sale deed, the first
petitioner has sold the property in favour of the second
petitioner and, as such, he has been arrayed as party to this
proceedings.

7. Such being the matter, all of a sudden, without giving

opportunity of hearings, the third respondent has passed an
order dated 10/08/2021 and thereby rejected the
representation of the first petitioner dated 10/09/2018.
Certified copy of the order is produced herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE-K.

8. It is submitted that Annexure-K dated

10/08/2021passed by the third respondent is totally illegal
and unsustainable. Being aggrieved by the same, having no
other alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner herein
 17

presents this Memorandum of Writ Petition following among

other grounds.
9. The petitioner has not filed any other writ/s or initiated
any other proceedings either before this Hon’ble Court or any
other court on the same cause of action.

GROUNDS
10. The first petitioner submits that the respondents have
not considered the representation in consonance with the
orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. Admittedly, the property
was sold in favour of the first petitioner after receiving the
sale consideration of Rs.88,656/- and the sale deed dated
15/02/2006 was executed by the third respondent in favour
of the first petitioner in respect of the schedule property.
Respondent No.3-Tahsildar has not initiated any proceedings
nor has stated any specific reasons in his notices for having
cancelled the allotment. The third respondent is totally
erroneous in passing the impugned order. He has no locus
standitocancel the allotment or whatsoever when the property
is sold through a registered deed after receiving the sale
consideration. Once the property is sold in favour of the first
petitioner, all the rights or whatsoever are seized to be
exercised by the respondents. On the other hand, the
petitioners are the absolute owners of the said property and
the respondents have no locus standi to interfere with the
enjoyment of the property irrespective of the status of the
property. In fact, a Men’s Saloon is being run in a portion of
the property which is part and parcel of the domestic
requirement. The respondents have changed their grounds
from time to time in their notices. In the impugned order, the
third respondent has stated that the general public have
complained to his predecessors that the property in Sy.No.94
was allotted to various persons by virtue of HakkuPatra and
the same is to be cancelled. The said representation is still
pending consideration. As far as the first petitioner
 18

concerned, the third respondent has narrated in his order

that the genuineness of theHakkuPatra issued to the first
petitioner has to be ascertained.

11. Viewed from any angle, the act and attitude of the third
respondent is illegal and unsustainable.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER

12. In view of the Annexure-K passed, the respondents are
making hectic efforts to dispossess the petitioners from the
schedule property. In that event, the first petitioner will be
put to greater hardship and injury. Therefore it is just, proper
and necessary to grant the interim order as prayed for.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the first petitioner above named prays that
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ

or Order quashing the impugned notice dated
10/08/2021 vide No.94CC/CR/63/2018-19 issued by
the third respondent vide ANNEXURE-K;

ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ

or order directing the third respondent not to indulge in
the acts, such as harassing the petitioner on one or
other pretext;

iii) And pass such other Order/s which are deemed to be fit
in the nature and circumstance of the case.

INTERIM PRAYER

The petitioner above named prays that this Hon’ble

Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings by virtue of
impugned order dated 10/08/2021, No.94CC/CR/63/2018-
19 vide ANNEXURE-Kissued by the third respondent and,
direct the third respondent and his officials not to dispossess
 19

the petitioners from the schedule property, pending disposal

of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.95,
situated at Amruthahalli Village YelahankaHobli, Bengaluru
North (Addl.), Bengaluru District, measuring East to West:30
Feet & North to South:40 Feet, totally measuring 1200 Sq.Ft.
and bounded on the;
East : Sharavana’s House
West : Sharadamma’s House
North : Road
South : Thangavelu’s House

Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:

Sri C.R. GOPALASWAMY

& ASSOCIATES
Advocates
No.22/2, Nagappa Street
Near Sheshadripuram College
Sheshadripuram
BENGALURU – 560 020
Phone: 98451 17411
99453 03073
 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION No. /2021 [KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVASA & ANOTHER - PETITIONERS

A N D:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I,CHAMUNDESHWARI W/o. Sri Subramaniyam G.M, Aged

about 56 years, R/at No.43, 4th Main Road, More Mall,
Hanumanthappa Layout, Sultanpalya, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 032, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as follows:

1. I am the second petitioner.I know the first petitioner,he

was authorisd me to swer this affidavit. I know the facts of
the case and hence, I am swearing this affidavit on behalf of
petitioner no 1 as wel as my self.

2. The averments made in paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Writ

Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
belief and information.

3. The ANNEXURES– A to Jare Xerox copies of their

originals & ANNEXURE-K is the certified copy.

4. I do hereby declare that what is stated above is true and

correct.
Identified by me

ADVOCATE
Bengaluru
 21

Dated:
No. of Corrections:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION No. /2021 [KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVASA & ANOTHER - PETITIONERS

A N D:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS

INDEX

Sl. No. Description Pages C.F

1 Synopsis

2 Memorandum of Writ Petition under Section 226 &

227 of the Constitution of India.

3 Verifying Affidavit.

4 Copy of the registered sale deed dated 08/03/2006 at

ANNEXURE-A.

5 Copy of the HakkuPatra at ANNEXURE-B.

6 Copy of the Khata Certificate & typed copy at

ANNEXURE-C.

7 Copy of the tax paid receipt at ANNEXURE-D.

8 Copy of the notice under Section 104 of KLR Act,

dated 06/07/2018 at ANNEXURE-E.

9 Copy of the reply dated 16/07/2018 at ANNEXURE-F.

10 Copy of the notice dated 04/09/2018 at ANNEXURE-G.

11 Copy of the reply dated 10/09/2018 at ANNEXURE-H.

12 Copy of the Order dated 28/02/2020 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.42151/2018at ANNEXURE-J.

13 Certified copy of the impugned order dated

10/08/2021, passed by the third respondent vide
No.94CC/CR/63/2018-19 at ANNEXURE-K.

14 Vakalathnama.
 22

Bengaluru
Dated: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Typed copy of ANNEXURE-C

ಬೃಹತ್ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮಹಾನಗರ ಪಾಲಿಕೆ

ವಾರ್ಡ: 07
ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಡಿ.ಎ. 10-11 ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರವರ ಕಛೇರಿ
ಕಂದಾಯ ಇಲಾಖೆ ಯಲಹಂಕ ವಲಯ
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 18/12/10

ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ/CERTIFICATE

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ವಾರ್ಡ-07 ನೆಯ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಅಮೃತಹಳ್ಳಿ ಇರುವ 1891/95

ನೆಯ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯು ಆಸ್ತಿ ಖಾತೆಯ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿಯ ದಾಖಲೆ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀ. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಬಿನ್

ವೆಂಕಟೇಶ್ ಇವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸಹಿ/-
ಸಹ ಕಂದಾಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ
ಸಹಾಯಕ ಕಂದಾಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ
ಬೃಹತ್ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಮಹಾನಗರ ಪಾಲಿಕೆ
ಶ್ರೀ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ
ಅಮೃತ ಹಳ್ಳಿ
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-92

//TRUE COPY//
23