High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt K Vijaya vs The Commissioner on 17 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt K Vijaya vs The Commissioner on 17 September, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY or' SEPTEMBER,¢v£?.:01S_0..v

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1cE RAM. A ..MORiAN.:' "    E 

WRIT PETITION No.6737S0VI4':'.20v1O'E335}  A

BETWEEN:

SMT. KVIJAYA, W/O. K,-GOPAVL--------- _  
AGE31YEARs V  5 _ » A '
R/O. 14'"! CROSS ROAD"     

5TH WARD, NEAR VENKATE'SHWARA  ' _ 

TEMPLE, MANGAEvIgMA}\fA PAL.yA_' I  =
EANGALORE       PE'I'ITIONER

{BY SR1. PRL1Tr{_Vj1_    S
THE COAMMTSSIQNTERSES   E

BANGALORE TEVEVELQPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD".

 BMEQALORE --'2.r_)._ V  RESPONDENT

    ADV]

 .  FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227

oE_frHE .c-QNSTITUTTON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASI-I
THE <.EN'I)ORSEMENT DTD. 1.4.09 ISSUED BY

 RESPONDENT VIDE ANN--F; AND ETC.

E "GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

V  THIS PETETION COMING ON FOR PRLHEARING IN 'B'

M



ORDER

The petitioner in her application for allotment”

site reserved for the economically Weaker sectionli .

family income is less than Rs.1.l~,»~8.(_)4(‘)/ V’_”her._V l”

income as Rs.11,000/- per year

husband as Rs.6,000/- per .whic’h._putAt’og’ether was ” it

beyond the limit of VRs.11,8O0._”/3 duper yea1~._,.arld as a

consequence, was lilo of a site
reserved for «SC in the light of
the definitionljiihlofi and ‘Economically
weaker’ llll :5. l A Bangalore Development
Authorlityx: Sites] Rules, 1984. The

respondent’ 1- ll Development Authority having

,.i-rgjéctedflfthe_’petitio’ner’s application for allotment of a

A”-site e’d_.?fo}: economically weaker section by

endorsementldated 1.4.2009 Annexure-“F”, has resulted

t_his’petition.

M

2. In the light of the indisputable facts coupled

with the definition of the terms ‘family’ and

‘Economically weaker section’, under the Rules__…___ no

exception can be taken to the rejection
petitioner’s application. However, it is rnadetiicleaif V’ V’
the BDA is permitted to retain théi§.fI101,tIi.t eeg¢eii.eaiteytr

the petitioner and appropriate the same ‘against?’ {

future allotment that may i::)’e:’inade ‘fenroiiij the
petitioner while in the ‘V number
of attempts for a11otrnentV_of_ats_ite:. ‘

Petition is a¢¢¢ieiiIigiy;tejected, .
‘ saiegfi
Judge