-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT or
DATED THIS THE o2N:> DAY__0F_SEPTEM35ER..42O1OAV”
BEFORE ~ L
THE HON’BLE MR.JUS1fIoE MO§§AN”‘REBDY * ~ T’
‘WRIT PETITION Noe—–i§_§_O’4.. oF’2oo9t(§BDA)
BETWEEN:
Sri. B.S. Madhus_uda?o;a,V’ ‘ – _ ~
S/0 Shivalir1g4e”‘§3owdé,,
Aged about 36 years’; V .
R/at No.201,f1§t FI’e0r,°§.’j ‘
3″ ‘D’..C1′ 0’5>St»'”133″‘1’:;._310<-3.1'i', _ '– " .
3"' Stage," Basaveiehwaiafiagar.
Bangalore e 576f}V.Q"F9."-.__ .. ' – ..PE'I'ITIONER
(By sri. =N .v. Vstsailtlq, ':Ad'tro.cate}
13:,
Bangalore Development
_ 'tAuth9fi*Ly.
” ~Reptd.I its Commissioner,
Sanlsejr Road.
V_ Kumara Park West,
.. “Bangalore — 560 020.
2 V. x 2: file Deputy Secretary – IV
Bangalore Development Authority
Sankey Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore – 560 001. ..RESPO1\%DEN’IS
(By Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, Advocate for R. 1 8: 2}
M
-2-
THIS WRIT PE’I’ITION IS FILED UNDER AR’I’iCLES 226
AND 227 op’ THE CONSTITUTION 01+’ INDIA PRAYiNG TO
QUASH ANNEXUREJ THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION
ORDER ODATED O6–09/10-2008 VIDE NO. BDA/DS¥4i’HA:
SMVL–7:.696:2008–09 PASSED BY THE 2ND
AND mu,
THIS PETITION COMING QNWFORAP’RL.;Hi:AR1N’e-‘:IN’*%e’i T. A’
GROUP THIS DAY, THE comm’ ,THE_E’oI}Low11§;e;;e_e
Petitioner when ai1ottei(}..x_$pite 7tieBlock, Sir
M. Vishweshwaraiah._..VNag’aI 40′ x 60′
in his first attern t.~-was Wermittedi” raise a loan to
deposit-.tow’ards full value of the site, and
having”‘ohtainedxa’. from M / s. ICICI Home Finance,
so “the__._ifespondent — Bangalore Development
A LVA,ut§1Q1’it3frVJh€I1C€ he was put in possession of the
it The BDA it appears, having noticed a
de1″ee’t.,_ aid a mistake in allotting the site to the
petitioner in his fiI’St attempt, though there were large
number of applicants Waiting for allotment, in their 4”?
attempt, and having regard to Rule 11 of the Bangalore
Development Authority [Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984,
M
-4-
appellant to cancel the very allotmentjijy A’
impugned proceedings as rightly h.e__1d’~by T’ —
learned Single Judge.”
For the very same rea_é0_ns, fl1i__s ‘pveti.til1f1””deServes. ‘
to be allowed and alleWed.. ,.;1’he order
impugned is quashedll l” –
l A SéI§ 1 ' 79-599 KS