IN THE HIGH coum' op' KARNATAKA, I3AI+I(§§;§sI,§)I:%jI3 3
DATED THIS ma gm: DAY 01? ,:f>E<jI3:M_BTI?;R';I%2o:0a:I% '
BEFORE
THE E»-iON'BLE MR. JUS'I'¥'{';3:E.A«JI'i' J.§}Ur~é;IAi;v;' H
WRIT PETITION I:-3 ~r;_292§a"i)I$g;I7efi3I. .('LA~B.Ii);;I';'j
BETWEEN:
1
'-._ANi}._
1_
R MURLIDH~AR'A s;;;o LA'FE -A"R_U_PA[}HYA
AGED 6S3_YE£{RS,,_ - "
R/O _
2ND cIeQSs,;»'wD'm<'API5mIi'A LAYOUT,
KATR-1'iU'P_PA"~1::::,- " =
BAIIGAL0I§'z3 ~ M
PETYFIONER.
(By srgf AIIANT VAIALBALI ADV. )
'*'.%I*:%2E4E.§'Né.§A:;oRE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(B.D.A.)LI'I?E:PREsENTEn BY THE
"*mIg*I'MI.:§soNER, AT B.D.A. OFFICE,
RAILWAY PARRALLEL
I ROPID, BANGALORE 20.
" SIPECIAL LAND Aceuismow OFFICER
OF B.D.A. AT SAiD ADDRESS,
BANGALORE 20.
THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER,
AT NAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE 2,
the alternate for possession. The... 53116
pending. Indeed another suit is flied 7-].
by the petitioner for bare
parties submit that the: 'suit dowo' and
evidence has commencodfi vficfndency of the
second suit of makes an
application for restraining the
respondstzmts t'ésp61';dents 5 and 6 from
putting ti}; The said application was
rejected. the pefifioner filed two
to----the order dated 6.11.200'? in MFA
.V'8f7?t'3:/'06'v~v.'}a:£Iie'ti~ :Iv:};-'A 8939/O6 this court auowed the
both the parties to Inaintain status
anti" ttsrtlxer directed that the suit is required to be
of on day to day basis. Respondents 5 and 6
t 3 faggimd by the said order filed a SLP in SLP No.
D4931/O7. The Amx Court granted Special Leave and
disposed of the matter. It is to be noticed that the Apex
Court while disposing of the matter has referred to the
18 and 19 and on the application
respondent—4 and 7 the same h;s;1Ic»__i’1ee11″ ” ”
indeed as has been rightly 31;
counsel appearing for 1espor1zVieflt~7V” Asite ztotvt
the subject matter of the yqtftflch is
sought in respect of sale should
be set at naught _eI3__ cannot
‘bé agitated in tm$§€’?,rtht% A % 1. A ,
10. “d the arguments several
documents: ate both the petitioner as well
as E__t;ESp0nd€fliS..«’WhiCh are in the nature of
dd’-Vainetxmetitiv'”efijgulicafions, additional documents and
‘dticuments along with the statement cf
ebjectimgtsg indeed all those documents are required to
tested with the touch stone of law of evidence
V. site No. 433 is a part of acquired land or not.
iflndeed the Apex Court while dealing with the appeal
filed by respondents 5 and 6 has ebserved that Sy. No. fl
Consequently, I do not find any-
petition. Petition stands rejected.
It is needless to say
who is seized of the suit’ §333i;Zi.é:’–t3j?”» 13116′ éi1’ectié3ns
issued by this court in the
Bye