IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 25th my 01? FEBRUARY
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTECE AJIT J T
WRIT PETYFION Ne.3489 O}? :_3f(;">O7{B3i);i&)'.. A'
BETWEEN:
Smt. E\I..\fi_jaya Rae,
W/0 Gundm Rae,
Aged about 56 years, V V
21/22, K.M.Layom:., L .
RMVII stage,
Sarfiayrzagax',-V 2 * __ .
Bangagore-5:50 ...PET1'1'IQNER
(Sri _,S.§:§§.c§fl:~:1 ,".§§fiv.) &
ANI): V VA 2 1
1. The --(3hairf§1sfif1,' -
B:-:.z31.ga1ore Develejggnvant Au.i:h0rity,
.. _ f;'.V't'3h{iair?=daii9;h Road,
* VBang.:a}_or¢'~5@0 020.
2. 'T1?:e% 'Céni§*§:i$fs3£0ner,
Banga__£0rc..Dcvei0pzne11t Author-i¥:y,
'T.(3i:0wdaiah Road,
' " 4" -- i nBanga.1..a:§re~--560 0:20.
V'cz.:ukatesh Patil,
Retired Disfiéct Judge,
% -'v.---No.7, 15'? Cross,
Judicial Ofi"1c:er's Layout
Sanjaynagar,
Bangalo1*e--56O O94. ,..RESPON}DENTS
third ;fespQndeI1tV_VWe.s efietted site No.7' in the Judieia}
The ease of the petitioner appears to be
V VV as 14espeii%:£'efit N93 there is a road in existence.
W the allotment of the auetier). 'site as well as
egiietment ofa marginal land, there is no ingress and
VT to the heuse of the petitioner. The specific: ease
'4 A 01:" the petitioner is that vacant iand adjacent to site No.7'
(Sri R.Sharath Chanéra, Adv. for R1 ami R2; Sri Ajay
Kumar Patil, Adv. for R3}
This 'W? is filed "i1I'id€I' Articles 226 and 227 of the
Cenetitutien ef Iridia praying to declare that a110t111e1::,_t"'Qf
3 portion of road measuring mare pareicularly m_fer:_'ed'..a
ta in schedule to the writ, petition in fe."v01,21f;"t)i*;_.
respondent as marghal iand for second time" e_:se_'m;i}.1. 1 " 4_
and void and contraxy to rule agate strike écjtzsg/1?”:..1;jt*;e same, V ” ”
€50 . V. 1
This WP coming (:11 fer ‘1iee..1fi.I1g§ in. ‘B’
Group this day, the C0u:ft’~J11a_:1e fe,1_L'<32§:ing:
pegne %
The petit:ei1 §:r’te i§e._Vt19§e’–eWner of the site
eearirzg ‘ layout
Sanjaya,f2ag€1f{ ..___’1′}:_1e third respondent is the
neig11beui’ efthe’ is not in dispute that the
that’-Tiebefieeeejeite belonging to the petitioner as well
/’
/’
and site No.’?A has been left: fer the read by the M
Bangalore Development Autherity. The main grievamze
of the petitioner appears to be that the marginai
abutting siie N03,? and 7A has been; wanted r.- A4
of the third respondent which has ‘4
the petitioner in making use otffile
to their residence. Hence, t§1e”;’:;f:c:5:+:eI1tV.per,VitieJ”‘;
mainly on the ground not
have been granted in ;’»b__r_esp0r1dez1t.
The prayer made petition is
as foliows: V’ ‘ ‘ V V
={a} V a portion of road
referred to in the
5’3f’JT1€3C§.11’:§ ‘1″‘1″‘¢i3I’€’3V3v1Ii*€Zi€I’ in favour of third
‘:.reSpe”1″2§1’entA land for second time _
void and Contrary to rule and
s1:_1;’i1~:e«:”‘<i;o\z:n the same.
.. (1)) iesije Writ in the nature of manéamtzs or
appropriate writ or order directizlg the first
respondent te withdraw allotment; of portion of
mad as marginal land for second fime and W
severe} ddeainients iiiiieizppert of their rive} contentions.
and disclosed and declared as such in the
” ‘_”ieyQdt’. is a marier which is required to be
on the basis (if the oral and the doemnentary
‘evidence which is to be produced both by the petitioner
éie well as respondents 12 and 8. Indeed, the reiief which
5. Apparently, the meet questien xxeeeid
whether at any point of time, the said area H
petitioner’$ preperty and £:3:1i.i”d re’s§en:¥ent’si_;:«
was treated as a common read’
respondent was justified in
Indeed, it is to be netieed ‘¥f,i_1e,t._$2§?iciA’1f,’t’1vVt)f”‘ir,i1e so
eailed read was granted at an
atiction pI’iee ure5?’:i£)e¥,ek I Indeed, if it
were to Second respondent
granting tniediifespondent would not
have a1’iSe1:LI * noticed that both the
petitioner as as respondent, have relied on
Ind—fee_i:,u said area could be treated as a read
is sought for by the petitioner is in the nature ef fl
./
which is required to be deait, ultimately if a suit is filed
is oniy in respect of the grant of marghal iand
in 2006 anéi not site No.”?’A. V
All int.erIocutory aprplicatioizs ‘Tvndt.
consideration.
Petition stands diA:;Vgz(§sedh”%_3f
% Judge