Nagarbhavi 2Nd Stage 13 And 14Th vs Bangalore Development Authority on 12 August, 2009

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009,'. 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.P.D. DINAKARAN, CHI_EF-..]uLiSTI--C;E._ I'

A N D A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE \'/VL!'%.'ISAI3l~|,'-"sI'F4!'IIgI.7T:'_v".  
wRIT PETITION NO. 2:uEI§'J;Y:I'I./20209'2('B!5I€\;'I3IlI';§ 
BETWEEN:   _     

I. NAGARBHAVI 2NDAS.TA_GE'1_3..Ai"£D, 
Age:    ,   I 
BLOCK !?,E'SII:3~'TE|_\3Tf'i'\lE11LFARE AS'O'CI-ATION(REGD)
NO.303,ISIRI';1ST C.R.QSS,1_4T_H BLOCK
NAGARA.BH_A=yI 2'r~I'DST'_'A.GE; '
BANGA-l,OjRE--5f~;€O O22.   
BY ITS .STEVQIYRETASRIEVAISHWANATH HAMSABHAVI
S/O LATE DURjE;AP,PA.__ " _
 ' .   _   PETITIONER
(By Smt S SUJVATHA, 'AD\.!~~f)

        

 " xB_ANGA'LOR.E DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
 SANKEY R-OAD,KUMARA PARK
. "'BANcsA'.LO1RE~560 O20
BY,.__1'T':f. «COMMISSIONER
..   RESPONDENT

 "THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO DIRECT

I  THE RESPONDENT TO DEVELOP PLAY GROUND, PARK AND
 "THE CIVIC AMENITY SITES EARMARKED IN THE APPROVED
" LAYOUT PLAN OP 14TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND



4
the court. It is stated therein that CA site No.87/2, a

report is called for regarding ailotment to DSS (Dalit

Sangarsha Samiti). Therefore, having regard to 

said material on record, it would not be  M

issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent, to_.V,d:ev'eiop.'.CAx'3

sites reserved for park and playgrodnd.:'.--A.'_'A'if

6. It is well settled that be
issued only when thereisa vesite'd'rightiAin thefpetitijoner to
seek its enforcement and  on the

part of the resp.o«nc:ient  enforcement of

right. Inthe,,xci;rctjti:sta'nces', we"'ho"ld that this is not a fit
case to 1'g_ra"n:_t a  As per the approved

plan, specVi'f'icgCAV'site.s'«tiave been reserved for park,

.--v«.,_p|aygr5ouEn,Ad,__etc.'"" from sites being earmarked for

it.,d'eve'io.bm,ent'ofthe layout. Therefore, we hold that the

petE.tio*nerAismditvfentitled to the relief sought for and the

'.petitiori..isidevoid of merit.

     the result, we pass the following order:

\.9



5

ORDER

The writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissaiof

the writ petition would not preciude the responden’t4E>V?)AZ: _

consider the representation given the*peti’tio:n’e:r,«._iri_:”

accordance with Jaw.

§h;IUDGE

Vgh* “”” .. ._
Index: ‘ it

Kzgffffi’
Web Host: Yes/N0»