High Court Karnataka High Court

Marappa vs The Commissioner on 5 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Marappa vs The Commissioner on 5 November, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
-1-

IN ram HIGH com? or KARRKEAKA Am EAflGALQR$} ?_

DATED THIS THE 5"*sAY OF NOVEMBER, geofi §*%L

BEFORE _»m-

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE s Aafiéz Nézsaé :7"'" 

WRIT PETITION No.3725 OF 2603 :Bbgif"*w'
savanna: V ' 4

1 MRRAPPA --';.--_;,
sxmcg DECEASED BY pas   '

la. SMT Gouakamajw/oimafifipéafi77«mQ
51 YEARS'H_1,fi "j.'. ="»' »

lhh MoHANPms7Q"fiAgApéA '
AGED 32JY33Rsy '

1c.sHIvfiKpMAR;,S£Q MA§A?PA
AGED 3G,YEARa_' " i

,_ ALL ARE R/Q=NQ,;59,
"-A5"*AyMA:N RQAD
:_»_RAM¢o=LAyGuT,
'.'yIJA$AMA3AR;
*8ANGALQRE}

'i_ -;2 M$N:SHAMAP2A

» 52 YEARS,
,»'RfQ ULLAL BADASI
Wf¥ESHWANTHPUR HOBLI

'BANGALORE NORTH TALUKA

R"'u_HEANGALoRE

"=~3 KRISHNAPPA,

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

3a RATNAMMA W/O KRISHNRPPA



- 2 -

45 YERRS. R/O K R PURAM

EANGALORE ... ?ETITIQN$ES f. _

(By Srl SURESH D DESHEANDE, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER V'-, A: V v_ .--
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ';2x;:'*pHoR::z*y_  
SANKEY TANK ROAD, V' . '~
BANGALORE - 560,630

2 .ADDITIONAL LAND AC¢v:Szé:om *7z._
OFFICER, BANGALORE DEvELQ2MENT*!
AUTHORITY, SAEKEE $AMK'RGAE,_ "

BANGALORE ~ §6Q.Q2Q=u _.i,...RESPONDENTS -

(By Sri Bgsayéaaq Q séééafifi, §DV.}

THIS WRIT PETiTiGNrIS'FILEB UNDER ARTICLE

226 AND 22? "OF 'THE' QQNSTITUTION OF INDIA,
vaayxuc To DIRECT THE Rgsvonnawws TO ALLGT A
SITE TQ was EETITIONER UNDER BDA {INCENTIVE

ascngma Fog VOLUNTARY SURRENDER 0? LAND) RULES

1939;«,V ,-_--_

 7T$1s°&R:T§éETITI0N COMING ON FQR ORDERS

' V THIS ngy, $35 COURT PASSED THE FQLLOwING:~

O R D E R

-} T5éA petitioners contend that the lands

‘- beiéfiging to them in Sy.N0.96 measuring 1 acre

Hu 2 guntas, Sy.No.163/7 measuring 1 acre 4

guntas, Sy.No.161/3 measuring 19 guntas and

3
i
K;

.~.~ss?-‘~'””

-3-

Sy.No.l8?/5 measuring 12 guntas are situated

at Ullal village, Yeshwanthpur $b§ll}u

Bangalore Nerth Taluk, have been acqfiiréfitbfhh

the State Government for formatien er é layeut\

called Sir’ M.VishVeshwaraieh,h: llnfi=, st§g§7

Layout and that the said lande have been méde
over to the 1″‘ resgQndentD*f¢rz termatien of
the layout and for ailetnenfi ft the sits to
the general pehjiciln eecereenee}nlth law. It
is further eentehfiaefithgétggfiper the scheme
formuletefi hf the reebnnfients at the time of

acquisiticn}, petitinners are entitled for

.~_allQEnentV of *tw@_ sites. They’ have filed

lgrefiresentatihn as per Annexure-D for allotment

of the eitee in terms of the scheme. Though

{the ‘ séidv representation was filed on

V’:22}l;2Ofi8, the respondents have not considered

. the teams. Therefore, they’ have filed this

“ufirit petition for the follewing reliefs:«

(1) Issue a writ of mandamus, any

other writ order or direction,

a-:5-u

record clearly discloses that petitionersfh§vogA:

filed representation as per Annexurewnjaeokifigovi

allotment of sites in accordahfeimfiith itng ‘

incentive scheme. It is also iévifienfi» thétr7

said representation has fioabéeg confiioérofi.
Therefore, I direct thoionregponéentoi to
consider the represénfiafiififi of nnfi€XUfe’D in
accordance witn’iaw§#itnina§Aporioo of three
months frog!” of copy of

this orde:, 7{“i

4. It in botany ciarified that this order

_.shou1d§ notV bé”*un@erstood as expressing any

iopinion»onfmérits of the matter in one way or

the*oEnet;3}NoVcosts.

Sd/…

Judge