IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OE SEPTEMBER
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM O
WRIT PETITION No. 1v417i'/20.08 . 2 VV
BEIWEEN:
SMT. SUSHEELA S. MAI\I:yA..VEI,_U I I
W/O. LATE V. SUREAIDRAAAAIIIIKYAVELU. f A =
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS I
R/O. SUNSHINE VILLAGE.-wv-- . '
MAHALAKSHM1_..I.AyOUT , _
BANGALOREA ss00<3:1;T0. . V '
' " ...PETI'I'IONER
[BY SR1 JAG;-.DEESHACHARIIi;AD'v.)*
AND:
1. STATE OF
BY ITS VSLEORETARY' , _ '
HOUSING .3; URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Vf1D'1~§ANA SOUDIIA
V_'B'ANVGEfl0ORE 45699001
»2f C'Er1A1:.152I'.I/IAN
[BY SR1 QIAOADISH MUNDARGI, AGA FOR R1
" _ .BA3\{C.ALO"RE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
~. '£$UMARA_PARK EAST
* ,_BANC_rALCJ_R'E ~ 560020
' - RESPONDENTS
I I SRIUDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
A» ‘ “313! G. SHANKAR GOUD, ADV. FOR R2}
DNK
1
N)
E
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue directions to
the respondents to execute the board meeting._:”d_t.
23/9/1987 asgxx Annexl3issued by uu::esp¢fiaént_
No. 2 and etc.
This W.P. is coming on fort:
Court made the following:
oRDEn_
The petitioner seeks l -ernandamus to
execute the board__ Annex.B in
subject thef.’vvre;fconveyance of land
measuring ‘ -‘ Sy.Nos. 174 & 175 of
Kethamaranahvalli_ifi1lage’_;in favour of the petitioner and
,_’u)sfloa&dethernder(fi.29/8/2007,AnnexlQ ofthe
res.pond.eht_, rejecting the recommendations to re—
convey th-ejlarzds.
e ;The answer to the question as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to a re–conveyance of the land in
M
Vt”-._19′?2 agreeing to re–eonVey the part of the
_ 3 VII
question and consequent de–notification of the land for
acquisition, is no more res integra in the light of-.__the
authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court
& omsas VS. R. HANUMAIAH at OTHERS, At
(2005) 12 sec 508, wherein it is 1iei’dssti«me: I
“26. This decision is no assivstancegitofthem
1st respondent as it wasx4t’a_:Ca_se
of a site formed under andtnotv of
re«~conveyance bf the
acquisition’ i._tse1f.’VV’ of the
applicable
aethtfieegege1{iii’ee’etf*e1T:3″ee%ee not fall within
the “pres e:?ibed«Vpigdeitee i ie., 20/12/73 to
8/5x86W ‘ a” ” i
‘I’hisuaVpart«Sec.38eC is prospective in its
.VVapLp1ic«atio_n except to the extent of the
made between 20/12/1973 to
which are saved by Se(:.9 of the
Atnendment Act. The resolution of CITB of
EM
464114
land acquired is not covered by the
provisions of Sec.9 of the Amendment Act.
In the present case, the resolution of CITB
predeeessor–in~interest is dated 19/4/
and it would not be deemed to be valirlatedii
by the deemed fiction create_d…by_’Seefélofi ”
Amendment Act to bring it’.i_w:it’iii;i…’
provisions of Sec.38~C._”: V V ‘
3. In the light of the cbeetrskatdioiie; the
petitioner is neither eri.ti’t3ed ‘_Eo”reei’v<'::or1\'"\vie),.'a11'eeVlorixdeletion
from the acquisition of
Pe_t1t1or1_ is' rejected.
sag
ledge