. '_ 1 ~ '-:.S Rf'SI{)D}\FPA...GU'IAPPA SHATAGAR
--V 2 "%%%"TH!§s*:*ATE 0? ICARHATAKA
~ : 4_ aousme Arm uaam mavammsm
nu THE men mum' on KARNATAKA AT ee\NGAL(§R E :~
mama TRIS THE 2078 my 0? JUNE 5;:
PRESENT " V "
ms i-IOWBLE MR. Jusricrs,
THE HOENPBLE MR.JUsric'E=;é;w.sATYA:§A1éAY;§NA
H H
BETWEEN _ M
BEJARIR URBAN '£?¥':vE§:40P».£Enf? ""7T" »
AUTHORF1'Y_...E5!,}A'_PU.R ~D:s1*i§;c:_*, %
BIJAPUR
BY rrs CQMMI§SS§{)NER_."' _ '-
(By sRi';TA1§AxAR:£!se;V sg ma SRi.G.S.PATIL)
% & V. AG'9En'"A3cm 73 YEARS
* » k Vor:<3.A§*'[j'-r1*1«;s;~'
KARNATAKA HIGH mum AC3' mmzzrm TQ%".sfE'r "As;1i:)E _
THE 039312 PASSED ::%~:.%V%MLj'_.h,1E " %..wang; '<;oE';*mou '
N(}.22842/2005 mrrEn__u7/01
THIS wan' FG_£§--'*'PRELlhflNARY
HEARING 'rH;s 33_AY, saaflnnfr 'gm:-:uvERED THE
mLLowi%m§:.V'_L";;+p.%
L "w JUQQMENT
1 is for preliminary hearing and
it hearirg with the consent d' the
V. '& for the parties.
is filed by me 23*' Iwndmt
V Vv .V 4' by its Commissioner in
'x.\§~Q--
W.P.No.22842/2005 being mievea by the
7.1.2008 declining to appmvc the layout
allowed the Writ petifion 61% ' V
approve the layout plan. The ':_
the proceedings for £59 * V L'
writ petitioner 17
the sitelm pnznmanmy
secmrs 4(1)
and 6( Act: were issued.
Being {he W of the W (the
writ p¢:tifiV§V$ri1exf)'A\'§_l:.'F:';'i?\To.22027/2000. nu:-mg
. petition, the owner ofthe land
T] land for nan-~a@'icuitm~a1 purm by
a. Rs.3,98,000/-~. The said writ pctifion
of an 11.1.2001 by quashing the
fiving libaty to tlm aufimzity ta
with the acquisifion finm the 31% of hcarmg
\3L\§'
objections. 'Ihemafter, an appacmon was ras-
approval of the layeut plm before the
Bevelogment Authority. '
Development Authority 113% .
17.6.2005. Being
petitioner prd'e;rrec_1 V:A":wi*it__ kn
W.P.No.19216/2005 ww
dismissed as a flesh writ
Petition V {Je I\. ; 'MW
W.?.No.228§2%26a5. mgeam in the said writ
to the rwponéenm, the
mmea skixngie this Court mgr tmuing we
zgyo;1£w;;s%s;;s;b1e to be quashed and further held that
writ petitim had mid a sum of
_ 1 ' and if the hyout pm is withheld, it wm
%% the petitioner ta mmvoidable hardship and also
\,e»9~
Single Judge (1% the Bgmpur Urmn
-
layout plan by imposing ‘
avaiiable to it in law. i %
this appeal is mefcfred Urbm
Development Azjthfisg-ity’._L by its
Commissionm’-.. 7 ‘
the learned Senior
I-t mspondcm and the
lwxjmd Advocate appwing for
~ ‘ .fIfh
from the High–r-‘-owemd Committee. If it can,
the High-Pawered commmee win xmive
dispute. If the dispute is not resohred M
Oommittee would undoubtedly »’
Home.-var, there could :
litigation proposed by of5tif;..¢:4′ ‘
Govtmxment or a pubfic ‘
This could be prevcmpd
Committee. In u is no
question of _ ~– The
Committee haé. to A ‘cm to
litigate.
£5: such a case.
The nature must
not be-, To be xmemnemd
that in or the other pmty
{git the decision of the
% Committee. The aimum.-d
ifiways claim that its ri@1ts are
‘m rm, no right is afmcted.
is constituted ofhghly pla@
~. of the Government, who do not have
én’i.nteI’cst in the dispute, it is thus expected
\,£/Q
that their decision win be fair ma
Even fl’ the dmrtment/public v. . : _
undertaking fixds the decision
discipline requires that
Otherwise the whole P11I*posé’a°f %%ti2ss
will be lost and may against wmsgmzixe
decision is given will
been wronged and
affected. This to be
dom~,_=- V V ‘ ._
6. counsel further
submittgd has passed the cmder
having the applicant as
filed against the Commimioner
writ petitionm’ and the Commisfioner
cemplaint against the son of the writ
the order is mt mw bonafide and he
as the Commiwioner was frail}!
M?’
interested in dismissing the applimtion for
approval for forming the layout.
7. We have given anx1ou’
contention of the learned eodn sfE!V_for
3. It is was
impugned in the.w*I’itt a on
for by the
te the writ peumn
dated that are moduced by
the writ f*%%L i7;6.2oo5 in support of his
, ‘_ weis considered by the Gommiaioner
has omerved in the order fil
doctzment contained tmeai: to him and
are net re1e\ran- t and apart from stating
documents are net mic-vam, no ins are
fi;ss}ifi1ed as to Why those dccumcnfi we not relevant
ms
and could not be cansidered by him and
quasmng of the oréer pamed by the
dated 17.6.2905 impugned 1:; thg ” %
unsustainable.
9. The next questiazzgg tlmflatiis
considered is as to Judge
was justified in to zafirxvvc the
layout plan without to the
Commissiorgeif the fiavplimtion
filed by vréfi settled, mm an
order in1pug 1€1£_i in is set aside on the
grgund the by the appli%-
in the impugned order,
has to be remanded to the
passed the order for flesh disposal
But, in the present (raw, havmg
above said material on record on the
\s«f> ~
V
.-..e.,…….u…e»\k,,.w_)_…….A ._… ,. ..
ground upon which the order is set aside, K ‘1. .
ought to have been remitted §*.e””‘ti’1e«_
Bijapur Urban Deveiopment . ..
consideration of the ‘V
However, the learned §sseed”diiecfim1s
on the gonna that a. stm of
Rs.3,98,000/-i” and aged 75
years. The itself be a gonad
to exefeiee’ ‘ jurisd1ction to issue
di1’ectio¥1′ Dcveiepment Authority to
sancr;cn as it is for the competent
aut horitv’ V. his applicafion in acoordmloe with
the applicafion and the d
Z _ eupport of the application and wherefore,
dimcxion issued to the Bijapur Urban
Authority to approve the layout plma
” -»wi§thou1: remitting the matter to the Bfiapur Urban
” Development Authority is tmsustanable and to that
\,,/x
£4!
extent the order passed by the learncd Single is
mquimd to be modified.
10. Aooardmty, we pass_tt1c_f9l1awfi£1g:V{§ri{erfi’_:.AV A
..r..).._.3__pE_……….E:.
The order pasm nyme Iwniad
quashing the order dated 17 “as
to the writ pemon is the
issued to the Bijapur Authority to
accord TA submitted by the
petitioner as available to it
in law? f;1atta’ is remitted to the
Development Amzhority
for of the applimtixm given far
J %%%T%%L§ppmva1%%ar zayout plan in aocomance with law.
\;.,9»,
All the contentions of the pmfies are k<:pt–' %
be urged before the Commissioner, –«
Development Authority.
Accordingly, the writ is oi';