-1...
IN THE HIGH GOURT 0!' KARHATAICA AT
nxmn mm 'ram 351% mm or mm 2009 ._ j
BEFORE
ms Hoxram MR.JU81'ICE_§,§_._ pawn; . [I '-
EETWEEII:
Mr.Pankaj Bhattar.
Son of Dean Dayal Bhattar,
Aged. about 29 years, V
F'1atNo.2*O1-A, 1112, '-- ~ j.
Rahefp Park, Basaveshwaranagar, _ '
(By S1i.B.fls(i4§/..) 3 V "
A119:
1. The .Autho'z'ity,
T. Chowdaiah Roar}, VI<;;.¥?f;\.§Ic':.-say ~ .
Represented by Commissioner.
-- Oficcr,
' V . Th: 'B.angak.:rc_ Ibatvelopment Authority,
'F.. C'hawdaiah -"KP West,
T' 'v _ fV33,'_Sri. Adv.)
wzawctition is filad under Articles 226 55 227 of the
f 'C3c}I£$§°E:itui:32.%3:1 of India praying to direct the raspondcnts to allot a
_ "sits; in Viezms of the petitioner's application (Anncxurc-B) on
" basis in lieu of the site being aoquimd by the
Vrfispondcnm for formation of Sir.M.Vishwe-shwaraiah Layout.
This Rafi ' n eommg' on for pml1m1z2ary' ' hearmg' this day,
ihc Court made the following-
wmw pmmox !¢o..8?66 gaM.E§g«?t'4 2' '«
RESPOHDEHTS
.. 2 ..
onosn
1. Sn'.Basavaraj.V.Sabaxad, learned counsel to
take notice for the respondents.
2. In View of the submissions ‘by ‘L
for the parties that this mattereis a eleeision
by this Court in a similar matter:ii’11 I
folkawed in Writ Petitipn ‘N¢e.2?9é; 2903 %’ of on
21.02.2003, this writ pétitrim’ final disposal at
the stage of V”
3. In is seeking a direction to
the xesL’;)ondez§f4’E’V3ang’:’ Bevciopment Authority to allot a site
on pz~1o.fi1ye41bagis”-:;1″‘ :m:”‘gf’ me acquisition of his site by the
mspgjfidents fér of Sir.M.VishWeshwaxaiah Layout.
\ [gfjfhg petitioner is that he is the owner of site bearm g
30* x 40* situated at Soxmenahalli V1l]age’ ,
Bangalore, having purchased the same under a
sale deed dated 05.04.1995 vide Annexum—A. The
=:§aid..«e’«site, it is urged by the petitioner, was acquired for
VA of Sir. M.Vi.-shweshwaraiah Layout during the year
2002. Petitioner contends that he is deprived of his residential
site on account of the said acquisition. Placing Ieliazxcae on the
%*
.. 3 ..
judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petitiacm
No.42483/2002 ‘m the case ofdluyanuna and Others Vs.___.’I’he
Bangalore Development Authority, map.
Commissioner, Bangalore and Others mpoztcd _
EAR 608, counsel for the petitioner cacfxgtcnds ” ” ‘V
be issued to the Bangalore I)cvelopm§;11t
the request made by the of *
alternative site measuring 30’ X 40″ i’1a th¢ légyout or
in any other layout. £3′<3!.1'£é§fit1s that petitioner
has filed necessary with the
rcsqmre' mcnt for 'fox: 'sf site.
4. for the petitioner and
Sri. éounscl for the respondents, I
find thaxtzrzasc (Sf peiitioncr is required to be considered
:’by in terms of the judgment rendered by
” “fllflnIa’ . 1! case referred to above. If the
is and entitled in terms of the said judgment,
H ‘A ‘T bc cansidcmd as expeditiously as possible and
épfiiopflnfc orders be passed in this xegani.
Sd/-Q
Judge