High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Susheela Natarajan vs The Commissioner on 4 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Susheela Natarajan vs The Commissioner on 4 September, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOKET

DATED THIS THE 473 DAY OF SEPTEMBER   A' 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MFLJUSTICE S;'AAB'mt;L«'NAz§, gR   

WRIT PETITION No.V1953*i'«1_;::v;:cr_'  ' "
No.1 Lconard   i " 'V . * "
Richmond  '     

Bangalore «#5663 025  »    '  PETITIONER

(By S;-;'.:' 'fiéaxr   Aci:}_;')""' V'

AND :

1. _ The Coi1;misVsione'r
.. Bangalore Bezxfclopment Authoxity
" T.5.-Chowdaiah fébad
  West
"  +;: 560 020

2} _ '1'3:.:-  Information omcer
 Baggaiom Development Authority
 Chowdaiah Road

 A.  Ktimara Park West

" Banga1ore -- 560 020  RESPONDENTS

(Ey Sri: (}.K.V. Murthy, Adv.)

2

This Writ Petition is filed under Axficles 226 &. 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents
to allot an alternate site for the revenue site acquixedfiby
them, under the scheme Sir. M.V. Layout.

This writ petition coming on for _

‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:
omen

The petitioner contends that V

vacant site bearing Gramathanéi. Liét
No.26:21, situated at vVfi3gtge, K’€I1g€Ifi.:§I”IObIi,
Baugalere South, by a cf 1991 fium

its previous owner.A’Avcoor:iiI1g–{Q the said site

was acqilized’ ‘.siieA:L4S1;étte::.£’}ovem,ment along with other

lands ii): the “f<;§riuatineI’*~ per Amtxexure-C dated 03.02.2004 calm)’ g

T. -tier to produce certain documents for verification. It

f

“$3
I4

is the ease of the petitioner that pursuant to the notice, the

petition.er has produced necessary documents as

under Annexure-C. However, the 1*’ xespondeI;t~–hgge’__’__i§€;fi:V”

taken any action for allotment of the site.

petitioner has filed this Writ

reliefs:

” a. The V ._that this
Holfble Court be ito Writ of
mandam11.=s:adirect;ing: zeegjoodeiete to allot a

a1tem_ate.. 4si:5e’:,_~.’for fthe geveniie site acquized by

them MAI. Layout, in the
fiitefest of « 2 .. 4 V…

b. prays for such writs or
4; ‘orders ‘as, EI»on’ble Court deems fit under
‘ -i fact and of the case; and
the cost ofthis proceedings, in the
and equity.”

AA _ have heard Ieanrmd Counsel for the parfics.

Kn

should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the

merits of the matter. No costs.

Cs