Smt Rajalakshmi Manjunath vs The Bangalore Development … on 11 September, 2008

0
96
Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajalakshmi Manjunath vs The Bangalore Development … on 11 September, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *