Ratnamala Purandar vs The Bangalore Development … on 9 September, 2010

A»,

IN T!-IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 

DATED THIS THE 09th DAY QI? SEPTEMBER; 29  I ~ > 

BEFORE   f; '

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTI(;E  M0;£IA.1?§»REl7IDY  *

WRIT PETITION No..__:63.96.._QF 2e.mM(EEA)

BETWEEN:
MRS. RATNAMALA PUAPIANDAR _  '

AGE    I   

W/0. SR1. P:JR5gNDA.V  KEDIIAYA' 

NO.106, GA'YIATEIu_REsIDENCY"*,  '

3RD FLOOR, 11?T;*CROSSV,ICSENT'R1\Lg

EXCIS E1«I,.AYIoUT'i,:::;:'-INIV.1I..sTAGEV« 
BHo¢,)PAsAND.Rgx'BANGAII0RE -- 94.  PETITIONER

[BY SRI. V'PILrNDI1§AISi.IsI%F.IIAIEJ5I BHAT, ADV)

AND. :.

'  m.E'EANG.ALoRE'I)EVELopMENT AUTHORITY
 . T  ROAD, K P WEST
 _ 'BANGALvOREI._--"2O
"  COMMISSIONER.  RESPONDENT

{BY SE1'; 0  GOUD, ADV)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

A   227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO _

'DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT ALTERNATE SITE

MEASURING 30 FT X 4OF'I' IN SIR M.

  ....-IJISWESWARAYANAGAR LAYOUT, BANGALORE SOUTH

TALUK, TO THE PETITONER; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON F OR PRLHEARING IN 
GROUP, THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

irfi



ORDER

Recording the submission of Sri.G.Shankar C_}oud,

learned counsel for the EDA that the pei:it.i:or_1»_erfVs

application Armexure«–C wouid be considered’ ~

passed in accordance with the Jigdgmenthfitié ‘Au

and others -v- The Ba1::1’gaIoréV

Authority, rep. by its Cofnd:’I”1=if.ssioi’1e;’,’ “jand

other-s1_ if granted three ‘time, riothing further

survives for cor1sider;a’t?’._on’e..Viu:¥’1:»’ th1’sj».Vpetition and is,

accorciingiy ‘ ‘t
‘. ‘. » S5/..

Iudqe

In. ..

1 ILR 2005 KAR 608