-1-
IN THE HIGH Comm' 0? KARNATAKIA AT BANGALQg_3fi--. ' j' :.
DATED THIS THE1im may OF APRIL,_g§0§' i' M
B E F O R E
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE'RAVI"flfiLIMATE 2 ]°
wax? PETITIGN No.2es6 OF"2dQ4TLReKiADB{
BETWEEN: %=V V~~--§
Smt.Rathnamma*g_fl,,*_X q.:fi.~
W70 H.K.KriShna°Reddy"Q;'=;
Aged about 45Vyeé:s_» _ fi'-mW
Residing at Yaiandahalii _~
Jigani Hoblié f_W " °--
Anekal Taluk', '\V _ ; W Petitioner
(By Sr;§;A,ViSwafiéthh §eddy, Advocate)
AND: ,x la A
1. Go§t;df Kaf@étaka
V"*For Infiustrias and Commerce
W_Department«'"
'*§Representgd by its Secretary
cuM.S?Building
"*DrgAmhedkar Road
' §» y$angalore--1. Z
-2...
2. Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board
Represented by its
Executive Director
Rashrothana Building
Nrupathunga Road
Bangalorewl
3. Land Acquisition Officer
Karnataka Industrial Area '.
Development Board "*°
Bangalore.
4. The Special Deputy Commissioner .
Karnataka Industrial Area ' " "{wfi
evelopment Board _ i ' :;_4»i, Z
No.14/3, 2"" _ _
Rashrothana Building 3}. ,";l in
Nrupathunga Roadln o il*i ;
Bangalore"4i°."e..V:iie Rmmmnms
(By Sri R}K;Hatti;fAfi#ecate, for R-1,
M/s.Angadi'fissociates,fAdvocates,for R-2)
", =¢*'e ; 5
l_ii«lTnis: nkit éetition is filed under
Articles 226 and 227 cfl? the Constitution
ef India praying ix: direct respondents 2
l9 to 4_ to” take a final decision and
it communicate “the same regarding” giving” up
.nf1§W.guntas of land in Sy.No.74/3 of
054*’
-3-
Yarandahalli Village in the light of
Annexure-E.
This Writ Petition coming on fermiiifli
hearing, having been. heard and reseryedAd’f'”
for orders, this day the Court pronounoedkf
the following:- gr’-
ORDER_r_
The petitioner herein Vfias eadei ag
X prayer to direct respefidefitedi2,mto_ 4 to
take a final decision and comfiufiioate the
same regarding divifig.aptrfifli§S fiflhtas of
land in _Sy1Hdi?§[3e”:of:i fiarandahalii
Village, ete,–J .,L_ .
2. Learned ‘oounselfi for” the petitioner
submitted g~that ~ after .:filing’ of this
Petitieedi tfie flrespondents have issued a
{notice _and” have” passed an award and
£,./{“‘
_ 4 _
consequently the acquisition procee@ingSirmti
have been challenged by the petitienéf.A
herein ix: separate ?flji: Petition3iJi;Writ§_%~a
Petition No.542/2005. ~§%iei~q J
same, this Writ Petition wfifild not eurvive
for consideration an&’hen¢e he wbuid have
no submissions tb make tne:een.7«,”
3. In View of the afifimieéien made by the
learned Keounaela for ithef petitioner the
Writ Petition “iéi»§iamissed as having
become-infructfieus.
‘i~Ruie_ffiiaenarged. No order as to
‘”¢asts;a
Iudcf