23 THE HIGH COURT or KARHATAKA A'i'.' V 'V
DATED TI-H8 THE 239 DAY 9? r5A1é*:cH_2o'es. VS?" ;
Pnzsmrr _ _ :
THE HOWBLE MR. Jns1*zL§iaaEEP;A_Ii'%VERjs$,§'
THE HOWBLE Mi=.;._"j.'JI11fs?_rx::_.E s¥J[m'iA_sH BAD!
WRIT APPEAL No.i-933937' 2aO3'.'§z4-539.51
BETWEEN: 7 ~
DsRAMA1v:AN1 _ .. 2 '
we LATE D}? as: R _SURY23§§Af{AY';'\.§I;3 13635:
AGED ABou*r5;;..VY'm;;§;s ' I . "
R/A rm. 4:5;"'R:s.ayz;'2N13§.;
BANGALORE % % % ;
REP. BY PGWER «:21: Amfgamaaf H_OLDER
ma. CHAN[}R.{&SHEKAR'*«. _ "_ '* APPELLANT
(By Sri. £1.94. NAiw{;N;V[3A F.';Ef§} §Y, SR. ADV FOR
SR1. REUBEN JACOBV' ADV. )
1 .-THvEAs*rA1f13.Q:? KARNATAKA
. I}EPA'f2T":\§_ENf?"0P URBAN DEVELOPMENT
'M.'s.BUIL£2,m'Gs
me-t. BR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
, BAN€3ALORE--S60001
AA 33* £'I"'f:$ 'SECRETARY
2 THE: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR???
'<.sANKEY' ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
V' BANGALORE-560326
REF. BY §'I'S CQMMISSIGNER
":::; mg spamaz, LAND ACQUIS£'}'ION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTEORITY
S3-XNKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGAL€C}RE--':"560G29 RESPONDENTS
{By 811′. BASAVARAJ KAREIIIDY, G{f)\r”}’. ADV.)
an air” *Jr_ an, it’, is” :r:_ ye
’73’
This Writ Appeal is flied under Section cf
High Court Act, praying to set aside .:’-2316-.OIti¢r .pa ss¢d Wxit j
Petition No.153}j2{)O8 éatcd 16.10.2OQ8. A f}
This Writ Appeal coming an f0r ~}}’j:1’j’;3l uda§~; *’
DEEPAK VERMA J.,¢:1e1ivcxt:d the gnawing: V _
Heard Sr:i.H.N –,,_.3¢gior counsel for
appellant along wit§1′- Karczddy,
learned Govemgxxegfi No.1 and SIiRavi,
G.Sabhah:’t,v N052 and 3.
2. As % is barred £351′ three days.
Misc.W.N0. for oondonation of delay. Fer
thfiz reas;3:i:2’$ mcordéd the: said appirication, we are satisfied that
Zlthe explained properly and to our safisfaciisn.
conéoned. Mis:::.W.Na. 2238/2009 stanés
X1′ ” 1.02.2839 after having heard U38: learneazi senior counsel
~.f(“,’Ii;'{“‘V’.”aII3 pt’,’2.E;’;”:’_Z1’§, W12 were of the opinian that in cam: any area out of
V sq.ft., purchased by the appellant, was still lying vacant,
u :};;en Bangalom Develcpment Autharity {B.B.A.) cauld be
persuaded to aliot $3.13 remaining area in favour of the appeiiant
%
parties. However, keazned counsel §’or B
that no site is avaibble to be to Aépp€1IafiV:1′:, saméw
have almazdy been allotted much }the who were
consfiuctcd the building, thgmffiujtr t}1c=:&&.’x:1:_.1§a.s.§’fi<1%iV'»'§£)'f allotting site ta
appellant, does not
4. In the vVIightAiI;3-fore.:é,ai{:i ‘:;§ib’mi’$sion, we have heard the
leaned cou1}.self0z\ V the recmfi.
5, Unsucgassfifi’ geaztionér 5:” W.P.N0. 1531/2008 decided by
L¢am¢d Judgfi 0-:’zV1& vVi5}&v1O.2G08 is before us chafienging the
same, 0:: Variety of grounds.
Admittédzifgt agfiaeflant had purchased 8,590 sqft. af land in
écquked for forming a layout by the Stats for the bcuafit sf
Bangalore Deveiapmcnt Autherity and appeliant was the
W5
« ~ A
subsequent purchaser much afier the acquisition. ‘I’}:}f2 of
compensation worked out for such acquisition was gage ‘
preciecessor~«§.:1~tit1e of the appellant. O13l:y”0Z1 u ‘
Singlt Judge pI’OC€iEi*d€d to dismiss
appellant.
27. Evan though we “equit’2l¥§svV”AbE¥\veen the
parties, but on account of the appellant’s
land is lying vacanfi, V_v’.£_«_r:_)V:fl:1€2”, the same couid
not be worked bfiing devoid of merit
and substa12ce,’*is TAficmb§5i.;d~ismissed, Blfigivith no order as to costs.
Sd/-
]”11d<."-I e
Sc!/-3
Judge