High Court Karnataka High Court

P Jagadeeswar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 4 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
P Jagadeeswar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 4 June, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE':

DATES THIS THE 4TH DAY 0? JUNE, 2003  ff?   

.   

T§~IE HOIWBLE MR..}US’I’ICE RAVI h§A:§£M;=¥i’H

WRIT’ PETITKON 1\:o.671e>;g_,j~_*I?f 2o(§6zLA-Bag)”

BETWEEN:

P.Jagac3.eeswar Raddy __ .

Son of B.Bh<:cmeswax Raddy… _ '
Aged about 43 yeajfsi' _ V

Rf at #403, VAR ;:j'I::1"<;;'~:;I)A1.,1:«: AAp_eiIV4:m_é:n_t$' "

lstmaiu Road, _ __
Banga}.ore~56D QO8if_ " ' ¢_ .. Petitioner

{By Sri Ativficate}
AND: ' V

1. State of Ka1~fi;at.gika., _
Represenj:ed. by its HUD,

S, Buildings, Ambcdkéffifeedhi,

f3.aI1g3it}m~5€)Q

2. fiééelopmcnt Authority,

‘ V V V ‘-._, V . Sankey V Road? West, Bangalore,

I-E:_:tpresei”:tedv–._’¥3y ‘ its Commissioner.

H ” Aciditicgnai Land Ps€Iq11iSiti0I1 Officcr
‘– * £_3a~.f1ga1or’c2. Development Authaerity,
” Sa;1’K§:y~Ra3ad, K.P.Wes£, Bangalore. . . Respondents

V ‘{S;:€..R:§1vi Gsabhahit, Advocate, for 12-2 ar. 3
Ra} served)

mfl’

-2-

This Writ Petition is filed Articles 226 an 22′? of the
Constfiution of India praying to quash the Notice cia’;t:=%:i_

5-5-2006 Vidfi PsI111€X’uIE*J issued by resgaondent No.3,et¢…

T11i$ Petition coming on for hearing this day, ;. A’

made the fo33.oWiI1g:~
C) R D E R

The petifiomzr sacks for a writ ct§1fi§::§?raA:f§.. t0 i;

the Notice dated ‘:’S-5-2006 bt=:at’ViI:.gx

isstmd by the 3″‘ respondent vide Afiflr§§cu.:fe~J his
lands as having been deleted. iEi1<)m«_V_ac;;§ii:si£i=:#i::3;_ to quash the

Notificafions' tiated 3–2-2983 and
23-2-2004 i(f5i3_:1:é1"__'C(.}I1S€qBf:i1fia1 reliefs.

2. T}C16_ 1’esjg’3{1ndcnifiE3£A)z§_.b’Vi1éve filed their countizr, very

:.”.S€XiGuSt:&fi”:O?1iOflii1g tfie’ V15-ksfziizion. The leaznaci counsel for the

1;€s13¢3;Vi€i€.I;t;*3. S’21}is1r§:;ittr:d that not knowing the order passer}. by

the ‘I~I.<:$:t'b1ev as noted in Annexure-F, the

4z1*:$p<311d¥%:3:;t–VSVD.P; has proceeded to issue the impugned netice

the; ciajm of the petitioner. He submits that this:

notice has been issued Witheut wferezncfi to the

V or othenvise of the ozderj noting Vida Anncxure–H.

mgjg—

oréer. ‘ gj ‘ ‘V

3. Th€1″€fOI’€ under £11636 circumsfances I deem;«..it

and proper ta direct the respondents to <:onsiderjV Z

made by the petiiioner for c1roppir:.gMdi" «fhr;

procaeciings in View of Annexmvfl. At;CQI;d.j1%1g1}', 'I_"_ p1a$s'*

following: —

…_’.,………….___

The impugned notice Armexure-J
issueci by the 3″ respondent
is directed to :%_t:”:].)vZf(‘3.é.{V°$I1’f£r1’l’Zi()I1 of the
petitioner Arififczrénce 1:0 the netings
made by at A1m<:xures~F' am}. G

Within a peI:i&0'r} '0f xv;7£.:t::5l?;:'s~' the date of recsipt of this

I :"éiisposed ofi accoxtiingly.

33/i
Iudg3′