{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009
BEFORE _ L
THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE AJ§T «}.G1}?»}d;4L.. "CI %
WRIT PETITION NO. 192%-2:-%1%%1 /2oQ5(Bm;:%4L.&%k%k : %
BETWEEN :
Snatfiayaiaiishmi, _T ,
W/o.Sri.M.Jaya1*am, '
Aged about 67 yegafts, '
Residirlg at No.43: _. .. _V
1532135113138. _RoaC'a '
Shanthinagar,
Baflga1orev~->v5'59.:.Q?27T§:,; t ...P§:'rm0NER
(By SzgLPadubi&i:~: Rae, Adv.)
AND :
:.'j"i'i1e B2i1£l3331€iIrevV.Dev(§IGpi11€nt
'A}.,1th0zri_ty,_ Park West,
4' .. ,
». _ Rcp1~"t',f$6:;ntéd Chairman. . . RESPONDENT
(E3; sgfisgjama,
“Sf:.B.V.Sha11kara Narayana Rae, Advs.)
– ‘This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
“’22_?_ bf the Coimtitution of India with a prayer to direct
“tile respondent»-Baslgalore Deveiopment Authority to
–implement: the resolution of the emhwhile CITE,
Bangalore, conveyed to the petitioner undr
NO.TCF.1690/71-72, dateé 10.1.1973, as per Arlnexure
..3..
two acres in Sy.No.78/7 of Sarakki viilage. The
lands were purchased pursuant to the registered’ «’ it
deeds. It is not in dispute that pursuant to
notification dated 27.05.1970 gaze’tted’-Aogi ido1.o6;mAa,iL 3
the land belonging to the petitioner sought
acquixted for the purpose of ” ‘idydut now
J.?.N’agar Extension, Land
Acquisition Ofiicer’.petssed”‘£dh1 1972 and
the possessien iof over on
31.05. 1972,dd§ ‘is.:::V:1)V1_'(S§<1¥'t1ced at annexure
'E'. These_Afa::ts j.t1~dis§.)ute.
3. It A.:a.ppeai9s lodged a claim with the
“recoI1i%ejéiiig the land or gant an alternate
sited’ VC;fiIS’B, pursuant to the Iesoiution dated
a to reconvey sites bearing No.2.’-36 to
” Layout, subject to the payment of layout
it and other incidental charges. The said
dc-omtnuriicafion was issued as per Armexure ‘F’ and
“directed the petitioner to pay the layout charges of
I3%s.35,O0G/– within a month with the rider that the
t3/
V..-ellotteeffitoi Insi;1rsnoe Corporation. in View of this,
féoronr V petitioner, once again subject to
ot;’1;ajrout and incidents} charges. The claim of
netitioner is that pursuant to the resoiution dated
it $74, the petitioner has been put in possession of
@375 sq. yards. The present writ petition is for {i
-4-
belated payment would carry interest of 9%. The
of the petitioner is that she has deposited it
Rs.1,43,63′?/- towards layout charges i it it
reconveyance of site No.35/2 of _v .
sites in Sy.No.’78/’? of SarakkiV.vi1iage.”‘
the sites lreconveyed in favonriviviéioii the was
2,333 square yards. made a
representation] apépiieatiori’ 1) inéicating
that hers for
revonveyance, Sarakki village. In
the razleetir-1_g,’* on 04.09.1974 it was
found that 9′ sq. yards was already
yards was directed to be released
/
X
-5-
matter would involve disputed questions of fact
regarding the allotment of sites as well as
renumbering of the sites after a new
prepared. Hence, the entire controversy to _
in the Civil Court. His main thrust”-of ;i;_ne:V
that under Section 39(0) of
regarding reconveyanoe V eetween ;_ date on
20.12.1973 to 08.05.. and any
resolution ‘eifiect to having
regard to epex’CourtiI1 the
case of -‘Authority and others
V/S. reported in ILR 2005
‘V its _1jare my anxious consideration to the
d”””V’vsnbmissions by the learned counsel appearing for
” as well as the respondent. The undisputed
that bath the Survey Numbers were acquired
purpose of formation of Sarekki iayout. It is also
” not in dispute that two resolutions were passed one in
V. the year 1972 and another in the year 1974. In the
_ 3 _
square yard, which wili be coupled with interest at the
rate of 18% up to 2986.
7. Mr.B.V.Shanka1’anarayana Rao,
counsel appearing for the Bangaiore’«
Authority was directed to make available
relating to the noting and resolutions made ee;;~1:;§:e lint
however, on research, he has the towel and
made available those records ‘
are not of the Bangalore
necessarily give an
irnpressioniitljlat ,indee<fj,'tliere"'tvere two resolutions. But
however, -it is toine rleiiced that whether the petitioner is
of the first resolution on the
§"oi;£.r1<:E_~ independent resolution or that the
x"V'Bangalore Qetrelonment Authority is entitled to contend
" resolution is in sulastitution of the first
is once again a matter, which is required to
reconsideied by the Bangalore Development
it " iilifllizithoxity.