Disputed land owner to sue HDMC Commissioner
The Newindpress.com
Thursday August 31 2006 13:56 IST
HUBLI: Mahesh Dand, claiming to be owner of a disputed piece of land at Keshwapur here, has decided to file a defamatory suit against Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Commissioner P Manivannan, following the removal of the ‘illegal’ fence and demolition of a temple platform at the disputed land by the Corporation recently.
Disclosing this to reporters here on Wednesday, Dand and his advocate Ramesh Kale said the open site bearing CTS No 366 at Keshwapur, belonged to him as per the Property Act 2005.
Dand said the Corporation authorities were deliberate in their operation to remove the fence and temple platform, since in the past, the required documents had been produced before the Corporation stating the completion of survey work.
He said a Rs 35 lakh defamatory suit would be filed against the Commissioner for ‘causing damage to his image, trespassing and encroachment of his property,’ besides claiming Rs 3.93 lakh for removing the fence and temple structure.
He condemned the Corporation’s move as the Supreme Court had also directed to maintain status quo at the disputed site.
The Newindpress.com
Thursday August 31 2006 13:56 IST
HUBLI: Mahesh Dand, claiming to be owner of a disputed piece of land at Keshwapur here, has decided to file a defamatory suit against Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Commissioner P Manivannan, following the removal of the ‘illegal’ fence and demolition of a temple platform at the disputed land by the Corporation recently.
Disclosing this to reporters here on Wednesday, Dand and his advocate Ramesh Kale said the open site bearing CTS No 366 at Keshwapur, belonged to him as per the Property Act 2005.
Dand said the Corporation authorities were deliberate in their operation to remove the fence and temple platform, since in the past, the required documents had been produced before the Corporation stating the completion of survey work.
He said a Rs 35 lakh defamatory suit would be filed against the Commissioner for ‘causing damage to his image, trespassing and encroachment of his property,’ besides claiming Rs 3.93 lakh for removing the fence and temple structure.
He condemned the Corporation’s move as the Supreme Court had also directed to maintain status quo at the disputed site.
No comments:
Post a Comment