Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 68311 (KAR)

ILIYAZ AHMED v. THE COMMISSIONER

WP/35593/2024 · 2025-08-14

M I Arun

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31686 WP No. 35593 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.35593 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ILIYAZ AHMED S/O SRI. AJAZ AHMED AND SMT. JAMEELA BANU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, 5TH CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052. …PETITIONER [BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE (absent)] AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 2. M/S BRICK CULTURE HOUSING LLP A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REG. UNDERPARTNERSHIP ACT OFFICE AT NO.230, GROUND FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 038 Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31686 WP No. 35593 of 2024 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. K VINOD REDDY. 3. SMT. RAHEEMA BEGUM W/O M ISMAIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SRI. ISMAIL KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NIMBEKAPURA VILLAGE, BIDARHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI SREEVATSA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CONVERSION ORDER BEARING NO. BMAPRA/NAYOSA/PRL-09/2022-23/2621/2023-24 DATED 16.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 17(2-B) OF KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT- 1961 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31686 WP No. 35593 of 2024 ORAL ORDER None appears for the petitioner even when the matter is called out for the second time today. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43