High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Lingamma vs The Commissioner on 20 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Lingamma vs The Commissioner on 20 October, 2010
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
, E _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 
BEFORE A it

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. sHYLENDR~p;:iiI§tJ:;4teAi§tr -

WRIT PETITION No. 2s721,I.?.910 (L:&;i31)A"i»  "

WRIT PETITION N0fm28726lg"Q};_G §LALR%'1  

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2372i/53:01.9 (LAVQBEA   

BETWEEN:

Smt. Lingamma

W/0 Sri Subbanna

Aged about 66 ye;;trsV._ _  _ 
No.2O,3"'CrOss     

Ch01ura._pa1yéi 22 "  -A

Magadi Road ' _ _  

Bangaiore «.5560 023  ,_  i  Petitioner
(By Slri.-v\{.arapra.s;1Vd; 'Adi/.) 

 .1   it 'ThiC»..VCOn:rnii,3siOner

A ' '--..IBangaior'e Development Authority
 Kn..II1ar.-as Park West Extension
Baiigaiore

it it A  ' ._Tltie Special Land Acquisition Officer

 

N _,Banga1Ore Development Authority
Kumara Park West Extension
Bangalore ... Respondents

This Writ Petition is filed under Articies 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the



-2-

Respondenis to allot a suitable site and to execute a registered
absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in lieu. o,f"the
acquisition of the residential house site No.2, formed"in"katha,

No.75, assessment old No.32/2, presently No.33/2§'_:sit'ua_t--ed_" _
Suggipalya village, Ullal Village Dhakale, Yes_yvant»hapu1'a._,'i "

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and etc.__,  

{N WRIT PETITION N0. 28726/,Z010;"€LA'5lSI3Ali':_i  it    N

BETWEEN:

Sri Nagarajegowda

S/o Channegowda

Aged about 58 years  '  
lUatNo.-425/A/2    
4"' cross, K R Gardens 1
Murugeshpalya-..  __ «   
Bangalore ,     Petitioner

(By sir' Varapi§as,ad,i*;él'di{.')sff[  
AND:   .   , .

l.  The Commissioner
 __ °i~B;_anga1ore Development Authority
, .Kurriarai--Park West Extension
2' .  'Bf5ng'°'~i03¢ll:..

2.'  The lS_p;ec.ial Land Acquisition Officer
Bangalore Development Authority

_ _ Kufnara Park West Extension
"  Bangalore . . . Respondents

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

"the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the

Respondents to allot a suitable site and to execute a registered
absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the
acquisition of the residential house site No.1, formed in katha
No.75, assessment old No.32/2, presently No.33/2 situated at



..3..

Suggipalya village, Ullal Dhakale, Yeswanthapura iflobli,
Bangalore North Taluk and etc., a 

These Writ Petitions coming on for prelimin_ary'   u
this day, the Court made the following: --   " N -- ' '

ORDER 

RE WRIT PETITEON No. 2872.1(201ios{1in§BDA”>csvl:§ = i’
Petitioner claims to be of No.2
formed in Katha present
No.33/2 situated ‘at. vSugg,i;pal.7?”« ‘hillage Dhakale,
Yeswanthapstlrdi. Bangalore, in
terms of V25. 1 1.1998.

the petitioner that the respondents,

particularlyhtheV’BD_A Special Land Acquisition Officer

‘ ‘~-,1:1ave. {notifiedcertain'”‘lands for acquisition for the formation of

ias “Sir M. Vishveswaraiah Layout New

Exte.nsio’n”..,llAlrehabilitation scheme had also been held out to

it .o.iitheland”ovvners, pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and the

— assurance was that such of those persons whose lands have

hiilheen acquired, will be allotted alternative sites by the BDA.

%/

-4-

3. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is..__that

though the petitioner has lost her site due to accluisiitiioni

proceedings and though she had made several reprles.entations’l_4’t

for allotting alternative site, she not he.en~:’al.l_ottedVand’.

therefore, she is constrained tog,approae’h_th~is Cot1rtse’eking .forV”a

the following relief 2»

a. Issue a writ _gMandamus,
direetingthe responderivrsl ctiiloitjvsnitable site
and to ‘exeente in registered Sale Deed
in lieu of the

it..a’6qiii~5iitioiz§:’3egf Site No.2, formed
in ‘ Kailza.,:1K'(gl7.7i;’~.Assessment Old No.32/2,
llpresentlyvll’hlr;.33;/élililhsitnated at Snggipalya

_Villag–e,a ‘Ullal’Village Dhakale, Yeswanthapura

A a.”~Hobli, B;ang’alore North Talulc, measuring East-
ft and North–Sonth 27 fr, having
the same from its earlier owner,

a the registered Absolute Sale Deed dated

25.11.1998 vide document No.7634/1998-99
registered in the office of the Sub–Registrar,
Bangalore North Talak, Bangalore as per
/lnnexure–A.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus,

directing the respondents to Consider the

-5-

represerzrarions dated 05.06.2008 and
16.12.2009 made by the petitioner vza¢_’iaan_
Armexure–EcmdE]. 0′ it

4. Appearing on behalf of the
of Sri. Varaprasad, learned counseliijs
allotted alternative sites in favour-~._of par
with the petitioner and that cannot…’disi:riminate
against the petitioner. are not even
heeding to the for allotment of

alternative site, iiti”has”bfeeotne’;nec’essary to seek for issue of
a writ’-._of._ Cofnpel-ling the respondents to allot
alternativesite tol”theV petitioner also as per the rehabilitation
scherjnei}

5..rV_vUnfoftt1_nately, nothing is placed on record before the

C’ourti eveniftoiai’indicate that the petitioner’s land has been

isacquiredi for the formation of “Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout”

respondents. In the absence of such basic and necessary

_p_:r_iaterial, nothing further can be inferred in favour of the

petitioner, as to whether it is otherwise subject matter of

acquisition and for enabling the petitioner to place material

_ 5 _
before court and for such purpose, time had been granted to the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the case
adjourned on 27.9.2010, 28.9.2010 and s.10.20iot%’.:;}iia.l. .

listed today. ‘ A V V ‘ V

6. Mr. Varaprasad, learned lfori
requests for some more time to tlie lbeforelllthis ii
Court. This court cannot waéit end’Iess}ytoeénable ‘tiie”iawyer to
produce the requisite matelriaiiyyat to pass orders
thereafteri While of an incomplete
or such possibilities can not

be avoidedaif the advocate”‘representing a litigant is careless or

__ inactij/ell! be

7. tliepresent circumstances, and in the absence of any

i’e.le*4!_ant”1nat,erial~and more over allotment of alternative sites

V . bein§”no’t’:in”t’be nature of legal right or entitlement no writ of

llgII1ar’1damus can be issued by this Court.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

-7-

RE WRIT PETITION NO. 28726/2010 (LA–BDA) :

Sri. Varaprasad, learned counsel for the petit§ofieAr

submits that the case of the petitioner in this w.r’:it pCIVitii’\i3ifl

similar to the case of the petiti0nerjiriit’he« abaove \5vrit_pet-it’iofi’.

viz., W.P.No.2872 1/2010 (LA.-BDAii);..A i”–Ti’heref0re; i this

petition is also dismissed for the reast5’n._

NG*