SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 45217

D MADEGOWDA S/O LATE DODDATHAMMAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
['B S NAGARAJ & B M SANTOSH', 'GOVT ADVOCATE', '', '']

These two writ petitions filed as public interest

litigations are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by

this common order having regard to the similitude of

facts involved in the cases and the prayers sought for in

the writ petitions.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing

for the parties and perused the material on record.

10

3. The petitioners in W.P.No.10948/2010 are all

residents of Mysuru City having keen interest in

protecting the natural habitat at Mysuru and protect its

environment,

whereas

petitioner

no.1

in

W.P.No.4776/2009 is a registered Association of the

Industrialists of Mysuru and petitioner no.2 is a social

activist having keen interest in protection of lakes in

Mysuru.

4. It is the common grievance of all the petitioners

in these writ petitions that the tank bed area of Hebbal

lake within the limits of Koorgalli Grama Panchayath,

Mysuru Taluk and Bommenahalli lake within the limits of

Nagavala Grama Panchayath, Mysuru Taluk, have been

encroached and industrial activities are carried on within

the tank bed area. It is the specific grievance of the

petitioners that land bearing Sy. No.104 measuring 19

acres 10 guntas which is within the tank bed area of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top