Gowramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2008

 V'  :3A1~zG.AmRE.-73

..    ._6'm PHASE, .1 P NAGAR
* %  s.n.MqALoRE-vs

  A rtAz§ARM
   45: YEARS, s/o mama mum
T H x ..mo.27s;5, we FEE'? ROAD

IN THE 3163 cover or xammrarca AT  ,

DATED Tms 'mg 23% war or-' JUNE.,2:9flf8:    -  "

?RESEN'I'_,  

THE HoN*BLE MR. Juswicis; 'k 

*WD~ A 1 V ..
THE H()N'BLE MR.JUs'r:c;r§":.~*.:N.sA1w?A§aAj§A1f)1HA
w.A.1$to.13:$+;2ac~4f   

BETWEEN    % 

  

65 YEARS, rvv/13% Kfi'P%€APP!k-- --RED"Ii)Y"f_  A

Nc-.55l1, 109 hfflffr ROAQ"-' ~  
am PHAsE,_J;P N'z§»;:3;AR--.,  
BANG!.'gLORE~"78V   -- 

SE'! A RAGHURAM_ Rmnw @ "A menu
43 mans,' 310% ANNAPPAREDDY
No.55; 1, 100 mm' ROAD
GTHPHASE, J PMGAF:

45 '¥F.ARs,'_~;n/'Q' 'ANNAPPA REDDY
m.';3o6/1 'SE.~f¥NIDH1'
mo FEET ROAD

 



6TH PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALOREJS

5 RADHA C REDDY

40 YEARS, 1)/0 ANNAPPA Rmnv
wo.27s/3, 'ANUGRAHN  '
100 mm ROAD

6TH PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALORE-78 * 

5 KANTHASREBDY   ~
3? YEARS, D/O Aamapm REIDQY
N€).278]5, 'sou1«:a.mi'   
109332? ROAD ..   
em masts, JPNAGAR   "
BANGALOREEJFB  % 

AUMA    

35 YEARS, S[0__A'_NN&E'PV *rem>r>v 

No.278:2,.   

100 F¥:lE'FRGa&iZ_)  ' ,   % ;

6TH masaz, .5 Pmaam   _

BANGALORE~78 A =  

(l3y Sri NAGAEWD, "sRCouresEL FOR

 ..SRn¥' S..'SA1'«hJAY GGWDA)

 ANBA 

'mE~srA'r1r; tire' KARNATAKA

3.123? B'!  PFHNCIPAL SECRETARY
 A URBAN sasvgnomsm' nspamausnrr
Ms BSJILDING, BANGALORE

%  mm mneawaa nsvsmmsm AUTHORHY

jf » REP BY rrs COMMISSIONER

 



SANKEY ROAD, KP Wi3S'l',
BANGALORE

3 ms KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT V
SERVANPS HOUSE BUILDIN .-- "  = a 
co-op SOCIETY,  4. A' 

KGS ASSOCIATKJN Buimmf},  .. 
CUBBON PARK, BAHGALOREQ 
REP BY ms PRESIDENT  "

  

(By Sri R B VENKATARAMANA,~--§§CGi5~-FOR 1é'1~-. 
SRI.K.K'.RISH'NA,' wv r=s::zz§_z2,ra,   )

THIS wan APPEAL:1"AI$"A«.}'!LE3LE3~ .5)S- 4 0? ms

KARNATAKA .Hi;}i{."COURT'~ACF pmmsa "m SET ASIDE %

THE ORDER. :';m.ssE1)  m; Erna WRIT PETITION
No.4s7s3/é2oo3"'pAT$9'12s;11./zws; %
MMMM _.  "  
THIS» 'AQGMNG on ma PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, saaamrr' DELNERE-B THE FOLLOWING:

VJQQGMEN1

L A   is med being aggrieved by the orda'
T L datéd 1s;1:;2oo3 wherein the learned smgie Judge has
  quash the order, of bulk ailotment made in

\»/Q

 



favour of the 31" respondent dated 4.32%?  "it:

relates to the lands of the writ petitioners. . ‘ H

2. The petitioners ‘vi’

aliotmcnt made in the fa=%io’u;j of ”

The learned Single Judge writ
petitioners in the
acquismon pro0e:edi A- gm and the
said writ:_ upholding me
is pending hi the
writ .’ have no locus
standi to ‘tt:efi issued by the oovemmmt

is the writ petition. But, in the

14../.Vé”W_.A.No.7766/2003 arising out of

we have upheld the acquisition by

order them.

K/Q

3. It is submitted by the lmrrmd

appearing for the BDA that the bulk

favour ofthc 3!” respondent is not.give:1 efi’ec_ ” H u V

4. In the facts

submits that he may writ
Petitionas not pi? .Q It… ”
In fhc writ $35 _

disnis —

Sd/-

Judge

361/ -jg
Iudgé