é kaixgaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2137 DAY OF OCTOBER 2008
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR. JLISTICE s. ABDUL NAZEER, H
WRIT PETITION NO.689/206'?---§BDA} " V'
BETWEEN:
Sxti. S. Puttaraju
Aged about 42 years
S/o. late Sicldegowcla
310.316, 2'1"'h Czvss
fith F-Hock, Jayzmagar " _ f ' __
Bangalore -- 560 082* V ' " '....,_PETITIONER
(By sri D.Rajagopa1;i;aa§.?; %
AND :
» __
" vL)aiif£iaz_ja' Kalyana Kendra (K)
r Cs}.;amu11"_0'.i
ffilandn. Mam)
106 Road, Behind I-LEE.
Banasliankaxi III Stage
" Bangalore -~ 550 085
Vrrne' state of Karnataka
Rep. by its Secretary
" Housing and Urban Development
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore --- 560 % I
3. The Gommissioner
Bangalore Development Authority
'1'. Chowdaiah Road
Bangalore - 560 020
4. oflice ofthc B.E).A.
Deputy Scc:.re.tary-- III ' _ ' n
B.lI).A., Bazxgalont _ R1EtsP0r:13<_1?:m's '-
(By 8111. M. Keshav Raddy, AGA, for
Sri. GB. Manjunatha, Adv. for R-1 V .._»
ELM. Prakash. Adv. forV!€~;;!~4) * i
This Writ r§%e&1e1{i5:i;:;--;s fii.é(ci'-1;1ndé1"':'1i;ticles 226 81; 227 of
the Constitution_ (if V §_-:1dia,.Vp:a3*iz;g to' quash the latest list cf
bcncficiaxics. __ Kalyana Kendra (R) for
allotxnent of X40 ft sites 'EEWSJ in Sy. No.90, Hosaken:-T
Halli, Baxxgaioxe-yid.z: A1,:ne;gu1v;?A and etc.
Wfit Petitiim..c_prning on for Preliminary Hearing
"Grady dé3:,_ the Court made the following:
(SEER
T'h§_§ contends that he was one of the
<4%T.T'.&':V.»;u_g;.rnent tivesgfiiltrs of Sy. Nos.89, 90, 91 and 94 gr
village, Banashankari HI Stage, Bangalore. It
. base that since the BDA threatened to demolish the
!
iii)
hutments, the Balithara Kalyana Kendra of A'
HI Stage, Bangalore, filed a wzit d 3
W.?.No.8001/1992 seeking a dixectionzhite
therein. not to demolish the hnments of
to direct the EDA to "fheizg
constructions. This Ceu2ff.._by 1"7'.{§3.'Ié?92
directed the respondents the
constructions madeenfihe members
of the give efiizct to the
ncrtifieation ” éovemlment dated
27.9. 1990 [(3% ef the unauthorised
ca-nstruetionse’ di3iVdis.fiVAV’rf}1e: eantended that despite the said
_x;-zder, thé:.1¢_;s1x;ndent3«.have demolished the constructions.
‘f’h¢1’fi?ifi5I _ the hutnlent dwellers through the
V Iieudra made a representation to the
State Gewgzfiment to allot alternative sites in their favour.
eeentended by the petitioner that though he was one of
K the dweller, his name was not included in the list
‘ of hiiément dwellers f0flV by the 1″ respondent for
-.
alignment of alternative sites as per Anneramre-A. ”
he has filed this writ petition for quashing
beneficiaries for allcz-meat of sites as :53?
31101: a site measuring 20 x 30 ft. his
‘2. Learned Co’u11selI”f:;§r Ieefzondemts
have filed statement of objeetiqrxet that the
petitioner was not at by him
in the writ tt1e;fe_1t%m-¢’, 1?’ ‘tesponcient has
not includvede» aflotzment of an
altemativeesite.’ M n M
3. I has{e”hea1e1 for the parties.
4. __As by me on the last hearing date,
;C()jL1tf1Sf3:1 fet*x”the——3’fd respondent has produced the
the perusal of the (301111. It is evident
fiwom.’ the petitiener has not produced any
éémetefialx to that he had a hut in the aforesaid survey
to
numbers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is a1:4=t§”‘
permitted to peruse the records and he did not
matexiai in the records to Shaw that petifidner had
hut an the land in question. The
prociuced any material before this
contention that he was dtnafellging éfrgzeseid’ vsuxjeiey
numbers. Therefere, the 1″ in not
iucludixlg the 333136 9?. ;@$V”A’enexure–
A. Thus, the i:Va 1″1V§mcnt of an
altemafive There is
not merit 2’5-this: pfei-¥i§:ic>ii;~.A:.:.1″t–.is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
% ~ Sd/-
eeeee Judge