High Court Karnataka High Court

K R Shantha W/O Late K P Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
K R Shantha W/O Late K P Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH coma' or» KARNATAKA AT  7;'  u A

DATED THIS THE 3111 DAY on APRIL  A  'D  

PRESENT   

'1'-HE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'l'ICE RIM D    X

 

W/o. Late K.P.Sfiniv'a9_,Z'* 
64 years,   5;; ~
Rjby her GPA Eiofiér; ' ' ---- .
Dinesh    ¥:.;;__ V

S,1a.D.es'a.-}-waj  1';  _
iii Fioor, No;.31,..C  1'-fpaii,
BANGA_DORE.~., .   _ 

2. Dincsi1"Rank.D,  .,  

Asia. Dev2aj.Raa1€a.   DDDDD 

" 52. yearé,  .415, l\!r.'n=-.. 1

 

Pu'.P§G.§'LGi33-E}'--«.    npyt-.=%I.

I'-II»

   Byfiri-*L.uovm"   Advocate)

D '+'\.ND?D D

   Karnataka,

 itza SD_¢.mDt.e_ry,

% '*Hpu§iing- and Urban Development
*  "&;§ar'_u'aar.t, -M.S.B'aikii:i§
D ~»._D'r.A1nbedkar Road,
 BANGALORE--560 001.

, 0/»-"'
W'-



I __.1

2. The  ham:

Acquisition Oficer,

Bangalore Development

Authority, Ku-mam Park(Weat)
BANGALORE-560 020. J _

3. The Bangalore

.

De-eebpment uthonty

Kumara Park (West)
‘Bangaiore–:’560 020 .9
By its Respondents 3

(By Sn’ R.K.Hatti_, HCGP, rm-g§:.1, M
Smtflowharunniea, Advocate, ;_fo R-210: R43far, ” –.
Sri .B.=V=!3.b_a.I_1_k.a_ro_na_reI,y;a_n_a. Ego, ‘Ad1roeate;£o_’R,e2″&_. 3)

‘ie 226 35 227 of
the Constitution of ‘W-quash the Endorsement
dated 30-9-2006’!vjide ‘3An.aexu1e-_U– as illegal, arbitrary and
unjust and also to =the.__1″” respondent to de-notify the
schedule ..acq1£i§i’fio’n proceedings.

This Writ’ Petition eemiiig on for pn-,1nnina:y’ hearing’ in

2.. ..-1..– – re… …a. ………:I.. 4.1.- 4’…11……:..

gl”ITI”}§ uuy, \..auuv’:u. u.|uu.c ulc IUIIUW §3=

ORDER.

A: the request of both the counsels the Petition is

0 0″ up forsfinal disposal.

The petitioners seeks for a writ of oertiorari to quash

00 the Government Order dated 30-09-2006 vide Annexuze-“U”

, /7′
\V\

and for a writ of mandamus to direct the 1″

de-notify the schedulc PIOP°1’tY and for other reliefs-.;j” ‘hr:

3. The acquisition for the lands in qirestioniisibgr wot’.

a preliminary Notification issued as meaywmiag
followed by a final Notification the
T|_1.ere._fi.er m, by

– +=~–‘*=- ——–I-4. in A’ by
virtue of a mquesifiiv scam’ exte-t
of land wa the lands belonging
to the the petitioners is that
the been dc-notified from

acqtrisitica ‘thereforethetii property also should

–de-notified, Vtomde–noti:l3r the lands is arbitrary and

“private layouts have been formed around

+1. .n.z, ‘i~inn etg.

l
I
Q
l

V. Government ‘by virtue of the irnpugneci order has ‘

…_”:oonsilered the claim of the petitioners for cle-notifying the

lands. it has taken into consideration the various orders

A 1
_,__.a

___…..a 1…. n.:.. .r”I……a. :. u:..:4. D an..- 4::1…: ‘L… 4.1.- .2….t.”.,:7,

fiuaacu uy uua uuu..n. Lu W n. rfiuuuua umu

owners etc. The Committee has aiso appiied its ~

have come to a just and fair conclusion eo3ieideii_sVn§’the.V

plea of the petit1’oners.

5. I do not find any “aI’h’itra1’y
approach by the respondezttt. impugned

– ., ‘..’…___…– _.._

Ids.-.1: T11. W011 s I1rged_….bg.r_ ‘t11_e.ee eazmot be

weptefi m’- vie-‘ inf V”eeeei-?ttL*-a’;’ :sa?n?4e*-..e.o’**== .o..°'”-ow” b–….n

considered
the 1988 and therefore

it would not be %peope’rtL1oe to interfere in the well

reasoned omclerfl iespondents.

_Fo;.~ reasons, the Writ Petition is devoii of

— Vt is rejected. No order as to costs.