IN THE HIGH mum' or KARNATAKA AT _
ones THIS THE 26*" say OF awe,' i %
BEFORE, AN.SH4'Mf?;§:N}§6OUvV""' mm k %
WRIT PETITIQN m.%9.=§1s5x2oo9 '(Ba Aj
k$h2'1'Wis'EN:
Smtfiayathxi _ : _ -
w/o.1ate S.Rs.ivifi;<;1.1*a _
Aged 39 y<:a;§, 'V .. .
R/at.No.15328.;- '
gm Main._Road,"'5='--%';;.§:msS "
S1'ini\tasanJagair_vll Siagfi ' ' ' I
Banashankazi ' '
Banga1<;~re---50 -- V .. PETITIONER
(By 3:1 ems: ;aw%%;~am¢:g; Adv.,)
.....
}’ mngaiege I)a§e}Qpmcnt Authority
T;’C;_hawdé.i,ahw.R5ad
K13. mara Par1_:AjiVcs1
ir5ai3.galo°I*é«$.~i{}
Repby its Commissioner .. RESPGNDENT
‘4 X7 my :<.,M.ma:araj, Adv.,)
-2.
‘£3113 writ pefition is filed under Articles 225 am of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash theWo1′!ier_tla!r:ti
25.7.2069 (Annexuro—A) passed by the 1espond¢:-§tit’oof;:oei’t%;;igt_
the alloteaent of site bearing No.799 in 10th Bloek, .Azékav&thy V’
Layout, Bangalore, measuring 6X9 ttt1:rs., €’:1′.’.’;.”» .. .. :2. b
This writ petition coming of; in
B–Gmup, this day the Court made ttte’fo11owiiig:«’~ , «. V’
o1z’A,”g;g;;;:g”‘–._
Petitioner–wido§i?,’% ‘ he ‘ V % 39 years filed
application :Ai’kavath32 Layout,
Section Scheme.
She a got a son aged about 15
hf} ‘ three attempts, she was
11I1§l.iC(_2E:SSf1J} U to’: get the site. However, in the 4*”
” Tsite No§99 was allotted to the petitioner in
.V_V1£}f5éTA .-‘Arkavathy Layout, measuring 6×9 mtrs.,
oI1=.2 it is not in dispute that the said attempt;
.i:”.~:__=1~m attempt. However, by issuing the impugned order
‘ AImexure~A, dated 25.7.2008, the allotment made in
t’ V’ ” “favour of the petitioner is cancelled on the gound that
V’
– 3-
the petitioner was not born prior to 10.12.1959, the out
off date of birth prescribed for the said quota for
allotment of site in Arkavathy Layout the
relevant year.
2. In the impugned order, the
stated that the date of birth as pceeaacxj 95:
mentioned in her application ;§i’a5}ir1g V. e’
site. it is no doubt true the tpetitioneitg has not
mentioned her date ._el,re–.has the
age saidV”‘ai::pficafion was filed on
7.o.2(}(–_32′.«. the petitioner must have
been _ Thus, the petitioner has not
fiiateriai fact. As aforementioned, the
and scantily educated. She
is-.a Having regard to the financial and social
Aetatneef the petitioner, the BDA should have some to
Vth.e.’..éeoneiusion that Izormeentioning of the date of birth
= the petitioner in her application is unintentional,
V’
-4-
inasmuch as the petitioner might not be knowfifig her
exact date of birth. It is not uncommon
that people do not know the exact date evetrltiift
the date of birth is or is not the ”
concerned Ofiicer. Unr§e1_’__ suehV_ me .
petitioner might not have but’ 11.
3. The petitiortef the copy of the
aliotment order itself
reveals aitotted site No.’799 in 10th
Block’ by 6×9 mass. on
21.2.”2ee4% ~
‘i’he maintained by BDA are produced
‘ by learned Advocate appealing on
. ” The ease sheet reveals that the date of
ofhttle petitioner as per Masters’ List is 26.12.1959
whereas, the cut ofi’ date is 10.12.1959, which
means, she is just If) days younger than the cut ofi’
Sm/>
date, even according to BDA. ‘1’i1erefore, ierfieney may
be shown in favour of the petitioner, View
of the fact that the petitioner is a ”
working as a Coolie.
5. At the time of have been more alert menfioned that she was 32 the BDA should have Iejeetegi the alone. The i:5.DA the site under
EcQn0m’i{ Celly :’1 Scheme to the petitioner.
for four years and ultimately
the is passed in the year 2008,
-a.!..l0tment of site. New much water must
V flown within the period of four years. The
e have raised loan also for mortgagng the
site; Since third party’s interest might have been
‘ . involved in this matter, this Court does not propose to
affimtx the order of the respondent-authoI’ity.
6*