3 NELAMANGALA TOWN MUNICIPAL c0UN_cii;" if NELAMANGALA 562 I63 BANGALORE RURAL DIS'I'RIC'I'M REPFD BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER (BY SR1. R DEVADAS, AGA FdR1}_ (By Sn'.: S G PANDIT, ADV FOR R23 3 _ 1% (BY SR1. R CHANDRANNA5-His S Mariggsn',-Aav FUR R3) THIS wmr PE'i'I'I'IGN gs FILED UNDER -ARTIIKBLES 226 AND 227 0? THE coNs*:f1f;*:;T:op4,_o:?~1NmA" PRAYENG TO QUASH THE Er;:)QRsE'.ME:1-firs' '=iSSUEIZ} BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT mt '1§2_7.6.?OOi? "'v:D'E.,ANN£--x.F. TO THE WRIT
PE3TFI’I()N. ~ ” Q ” ‘
THiS__VPE’£7f1’1’G§?{,, :::<3MING..QN FOR PRL.I~IEAR£NC}
IN 'E' (}ROU'P;:_'I'HIS .DAY THE COURT MADE THE)
FGJLOW.ING':. %
% RD E R
_ the learned counsel for the
' 'c:Jt:3;:":'€;Vf'€?Vs-;fg€{§"f)9, the foilowing order was made :
V .7' Tixough, Mr. Pandit, lcaxncci cmmsei for
A. ,2;_he Vfiielamangala. Piaxzzning Authority -~ 213*'
* .._r€spm:1dez;1t submits that there is a iayout plan
sanctioned by the ers1:Wh,i1c ixlterim Manda}.
T Panchayath, which authority is since merged in
Respondent No.3, demarcating a certain area as
green area (park), nevertheless, at this stagcz, in
M
the absence of reievant material, it is_;'''iiottV'_~.. ;. i
possible to accept that the properties M
to the petitioner under the t\2vo—Gi;£"t-{)ee–i;1s,_jn it
the said park area.
Learned CO11I1SCIV>
suggests that a joint tiiie
parfies, of the aiiyjdoulitioiier
the identity of the t1_i«ei’v:iposse_ssion of
the petitionexfhto be” area or
outside, Vt1″:e’: gifted sites
feat in ittle petitioners would have
not “moors ‘ ~ .
‘eouosef for the Plannixzg
Authority ‘v–_'[11i(:-._3V”‘~i”V1’t3Sp0I1(§CI1t do not oppose
.. isuggeslitiotge A.
—12″” respondent authority is clear
iooation of the park while there is a
“-.__disVpute.:’oiver the iéemity of the sites gifted to the
petitioner. The suggestion of the ieazned
At ‘T eounsei for the petitioner appears to be
‘ifeasonabie and fair, so as to bring about a
resolutiori to the dispute. in that View of the
matter, since the parties are Detzresented by
learned counsei, they axe dzirecteci to _§oi1:1tiy hold
a spot inspection at the location whemljttzfi
petifioner has installed 3 borewell, on 12–06–
2809 at 3.00 9.111., identify the properties,
reference to the layout pian, supra, and _$}’ic’hA’ :_. A4
other records in the possession of 3″:1V’_o’V.
zespondent and the 2″” zesponde’11–t.to 3
report.”
2. in compliance with t;E’ie:v”or_c1er,A”per£ies’._r¢I§e1*.:..t1iat
they were present for,.joi:1t V. oi1–v.3…2,.E§.2009,
whence, it was noticed , instalied by
the petitioner wee ..deH1afeated as park
in the 1a§;o:.1.t _ etfiTC}Qset1 to the report dated
15.6.2009 “<f1e<,:i respondent. The report is
_ accepted as thefe..ie_no?; opposition.
' «.3, counsel for the petifioner submits that
tio dispute that the boreweil is installed
the per}: area, nevertheless, boundaries mentioned in
deeds in respect of the immovable property, éo
taliy with the boundaries of the park area :0
uifcoxxtexzd that the petition be directed to be considered as
an application for an alternate site to the SR1
respondent and to pass necessary orders thereon within
a time finame.
4. In the light of the submission of ”
counsel for the petitioner, as recorded t1f1e:.A_d;er_eer’ d
dated 6.6.2009, coupled
report, clearly indicating that the .pe’titioner ..
borewell in the area demarcated as” — the
assumption that the g-idfteri ]’to_’w_eIe in fact not
located is for the petitioner to ca}!
upon the 3-‘? identify the location of the
Vproper1,y____dsubject matter of the gift and
,iEie_I;tified as falling Within the park area.
Therefore Vfpvetifioner cannot claim that the gifted
‘ ‘.immotreo’ie property is located in the area demarcated
5. If for any reason the 31′” resporxdent is usable to
idenfify the location of the gifted property, in the
M
petitio:r1er’s claim for the aliotment of alteiiiafié’ .
and pass orders as expeditiously aJ.§»Vpossi_b£é’.~* – : ‘
csg