Sri H Joseph Rajan vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2009

  1. stage of

   ...{}r.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAITg'3F{_E;»_V' 
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY 01? JANUARY :1   
BEFORE    u    V '
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ;gm;;,~T%:;   Ti"
WRIT PETITION N0.969_1 /2aQ7{sDTA).: .T  I

BETWEEN :

Sri.H.Joseph Ra'ga.=n.,_ 
S/o.Sri.Igz1a.ti1.1$;_  _ . 
Aged about 6€§'ye»a-rS;"'°--.._ '   
Residing at AsI--1i1*v*ai:§, _ w ~
No.43, 5fl1"C"M;iins I?i<§ad,',~_"-
Kalyana I¥Ia%1:'a.,V'i.'i?F'A».BaioCi:,_ __ ~ I

Bangalore?-7 560' 043.!   h    .. .PE'I'I'I'ICNER

(By $ri.i1;s:Ra;u:;TajmJmi§y, Adv.)

V Depazjttngsnt of Urban
-.  ~ . __ ' '*»I3eve1op13:u=:n.t,
' ..I?cp-rgzscnted by its
 _ ' C1hicf'SecretaIy,
'  Iv3(.S.Bui1ding,

 Bangalore - 560 001.

 



V'   ii.he:1"espondent copy of which is produced at

  -aiiotbeii itiiiavour of the petitioner has been cancelled on
 '   that there was an earlier allotment in his
  at his request the same was cancelled.

" to the endorsement this amounts to

-g_

2. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Development
Authority, E{.P.West,
'I'.Chow<:Iaiah Road,   
Bangalore --- 560 020. ...RESPON!DENTS__f  _

(By Sri.C.R.GopaiasWamy, Adv,for R2,"'" -- ifs    ~ _ 
Sri.M.Keshava. Reddy,  for R1} .y  «_ V  '

c on

This writ petition is filed under Art'ie}es' 226 and
22'? of the Constitution   a~s.prayer"to Veal} for
the records  in site. i'Jo.9G8, 3"' Block,
Arkavathi Layout, Bangalozje, 'fifriim   and R3 and
quash the impugned Aorder. 'defied "v.OS*;l)f$.2007 vide
Annexure 'G' a:r_1d.uto'*~resf;ore the -site'_jNVoL9-$8 in I Block of
Arkavathi Layout, '£ia:1ga}or*e.   

This «exit'ii--fié::3:itii:in.'V'ieoI3iii*ig on for pram 'nary
hearing  d3y;""t11e Court made the

 apetitiox1_VerV' is: questioning the endorsement

A11"11ei;;.is1'e"   xrsuant to Annexure 'G', the site

fir



.3.

suppression of material fact inasmuch as it was not

disclosed in the application.

2.

Mr.H.S.Ramamurt;hy, learned   _

appearing for the petitioner submits that;   it  

petitioner was allotted a site in J.i3.:I§Iag:ar,f1'8ib..l5kia:3{§;~V393 

Block, but however, due to paneity of

not deposit the amount. _I--fence,___lie.:wrote  letter  the

Bangalore Develep'ment:_'  -- . V_ zeliiniinshing the
allotment. Ij£ent:eV,5:.he  endorsement
issued at  it  to be set--aside

inasmuch"-as"not-sir;}i5ression of material facts.

35'  learned counsel appearing

 No.2 snlnmits that only at the behest of

the  earlier allotment was cancelled. The

V V' applieas:io1:;"e'oes not disclose the earlier allotment nor
~ ',A'st;rBen§:iez'V'and the cancellation. Hence, he eubmits that
goetitiener carmot be treated as '?th attelnptee.

Vi   4. I have peinsed the endorsement at Annexure

The iaets undisputed are narrated, inasmuch as



-5-

to consider the same in accordance with law.
Consequently, following order is passed:

(a) Petition stands rqected

(13) But however, the F6Sp0IId6I}_.E~Sh_&ll1 c:¢ns1&%erk%t;*2e:e_  

representation given by   

accordance with law a,nr1_ my Iiaving: to: A

the fact that he   eflmender athe. eérlier
allotted site in tfie'-.,:1a1*rated in
the application.   vv 1  "  V

(c)   1'  the date of
I'ecei;i!§VVof:__éh_is  Q  = V 
6. fivs/ir._}~/'I;AIi{;e:»',.Vi1eAi:;a*.,:Re;:}dy; learned Additional

Government   for respondent No.1 is

pe1’mit!}e;d”t0. f1leVIi;e_i;:’1< )' ofepmaraixce within four weeks.

Sd/-»
Judge