1 IN THE FHGH COURT OF KARNATAI-{A AT BANGALORE BATE!) THIS THE: 1 1TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008.1 BEFORE THE HOPPBLE MRJUSTICE S. ABDUL £"~2'AZE}_+';}? ' u 2 E3E'}"'WEEN : Smt. Rajalakshmi Manjunath W/0. Sri. HR. Manjunath. Aged abcut 53 years ' ~ ._ . V R] a. No.135, "Champaka VHBCSL Layout V V Maha3akshmipura3nv._Post;.' " _ - ' Bangalorewfiéfii " .... ..=..PET'I'I'IONER {By Srif-.__B. ~ % AND : The Bzgiiigalem £§t*fi_t§ldpm§:nt Authority Roadm. ..... Bangaimfe .5 S6Q02O RESPONDENT Adv.) Petition is filed under Articles 226 8:. 227 of the Constifutisn of India, praying to direct the nirspondent A . *'m Ccasiader the pctit;ioner'3 application fear ailetznent Le. _A{111-.|:_i5of an alternate site in lieu of the schedulé pmperty '--««-'acquirecd for formation of 'Sir M. Viahveshwaraiah Layout'. WRIT mrrrlon NO.1243:i":w-£38 1i:31:J&l A' 2 This writ pefitioe. coming on for preliminary he _g 'B' group this day, the court: made the following: 9 ORDER
1 have heard the learned counsel for the
2. Petitioner contends that sI*1e”\¥-.9.s the
a revenue site bearing Kbaneshuxfiejifiil-3$itj’;3′?f$,..e’.1{he:tf1.7§i’~..A ‘
No.364, site No.24, at
Gramatana, Hullalu D9.kf;a1e,Vee3?eei:e.?ei11:}Lap:era ‘Hob1.i,
Bangalore North Taluk, the same
under a sale it is further
contende-c_1 lies been acquired by the
responderfi: fox” _ 3;” H nameiy for the
_.V{orrnatie£1 ‘~f “Sir..V:M.\ésveswaraiah Layout”. It is
‘Vf11f’c;f:e1fV eonterided that petitiener has made an
Annexure-B dated 03.12.2002 for
a}I0t1nei1t”Qf alternative site in lieu of the acquisition
efdresaxiel site- The respondent by its letters dated
7»ee’1:>3.AQ3.fio04 and 26.12.2005 (Annexures-D and E
2
|
W
3
mm
respectively) Image informed the petitioner to xp.I_’_!.3’C1’1V1CE§. -.4 V.
‘T
ce11:a3’11 documents far Verification. ‘ —
petitioner has complied with the: s.=.i1;1’§ ‘re:”;uir§:r};:t:t:1_’£s,V
respondent has not considered appiicajfiozi ”
Annexure–B till this date. The’ti3fi*5re, shé..hé.s:.V-‘filéid Hfiiis
writ psfifion saekmg ‘1E’:f§l1m_x%i.’rH1–V_;;’,:
(.21) Issue’ ‘£?_i?’I”it it’)? V1113 t}7.é’ nature
Qf’–__ ._ jjCi.§.:*¢§:tii1g the
“”” ‘ fifi “””VVV–é~§:)nsider the
V –. ‘péVt:iti:f:rj1:ér,[fé”z3ij1:31ic2§ztian fer ailotment
” i.e.,’ of an alternate site
ii”£ {if ‘£i’1€ schedule property
_ v..8A.Cq1A1V iVI’t:”x”‘a’;”‘ for formaticm of “Sir M.
‘ ‘ ‘ ~ % ixkishveshsvaxaiah Layout”.
any other writ or direction as
‘ I-Ion’bIe: Court deems fit, in the
interest of jusiicc and equity.
3. Material on E”€ETC{)I’d clearly establishes that
” «~gj:-ztitionar has filed an appiication as per Annexure-B
\»
4
before the respondent seeking an alternative site. It_;..__is
aiso evident that the respondent has not consideeeci:
the said application. Therefore, I direct the A ”
to consider the said application inv-aCcorda;nce.x$?ith Iaw.»
wifhjn a period at’ three months fi’o»fn._’t:i-3,eA’e1ate’ ‘recei;f:§’f’–.,»V’ ”
of copy at’ this order.
It is hereby cIa1*ifie{“i..V_thateVthi:’-y;.: sheiiid ‘riot be
construed as expressizlg merits of
the matter. ;’Ie”ceé;te;.’ ‘V _:
Sd/.-
Judge