Smt. Lakshminarasamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010

TO

3. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Bruhath Bangaiore Mahanagara Paiike,
Vijayanagar Division,

Bangalore ---- 560 040.

4. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
J.J. Nagar,  
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,

Bangalore.   :;'. Rlesp'o.nderi:ts,'"3.i

(By Sri Hfl'. Narendra Prasad_i,"'%riCGPA'for Rg1f',J  
Sri Keinpegowda, Advd'c,ate for " ._ " I 
Sri K.V. Narasimhan, AdVOCatéf.fQ'r._R*'2 to R"--'-1)" 

This writ petition is filed u"r'ider m_'tl;Cli3s""2,26gand 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to di-rectfthie r-'espondents to aliot
alternative sites within their linfiits{and-simiiar.._dimension and
also simiiar potential;'vairfd€-' aspthat='of~the"*~p.e.titioner's site as
stated above and etc-.'  51 'V '   

This writ vg>.ei:iti'on_'ctiii;,jing,bniioi._i§reI,i:ininary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court nijadeéthe following:

i l 
The per.itione'r's_:' g.r.i--evanc'e is that her property is

consjpolsoriiyiacqtiired fortithepurpose of BBMP for constructing

. Ambed'§<_a'rpetitioner's prayer for the allotment of

V7.a"n~"a|ternati.v,e sit.e§is€--.,.riot being considered by the respondents.

” l=ie,_ard”‘the learned advocates Sri 3.C. Kumar for the

V”~afpve:titi.onei+, H.T. Narendra Prasad for the respondent No.1 and

‘l<,en'ipegowda for Sri K.V. Narasimhan for the respondent

to 4.

£8}!

3. As the petitioner’s representation at Annexure–A is

deficient, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh

representation setting out all the material particulars with_i.i;.tviio’Va.

weeks from today. i

4. This petition is disposed of with a;”‘di:’recti_o’n:”‘to”th.g

respondent No.2 to consider the “pet_i.tion§’e-r’s case’ ‘the
allotment of an alternative site in accorda’ii.c_e–with .lawl_andvvi~ithin
an outer limit of three months _th~e ci1_ate”‘oi’gt:h’e_»» receipt of the

fresh reiflresentation. V ‘

costs.

ccccc Judge