High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Sushila Harlalka vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Sushila Harlalka vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 

. QT)

DATED THIS THE 9" say OF SEPTEMBER, 2QQ:~ F r

BE FORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS?ICE s.A5mUL NAZEE§j.°-'

wax? PETITION NO.?908 or 20Q8»iBbA3* ':"?a""*

BETWEEN :

SM? SUSHILA HARLALKA _m-,_.
WfO.SRE UMASHANKAR AGRRWALA" '.;
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ' " I :=
R/RT.FLRT NO.l4l, .V g ~ ,,
III cR0ss,v MAIN,*vAIsHNaVI**;g
GROUND FL0oR,cHAMg§AJpE$,-' "

BANGALoRg;5éo»G18;§   »;" " W ... PETITIGNER

(By Sri: D 5 Jo3H;; kn%;y»

..,.a...........................

'=1,'$TArgVQE_KARMATAKA
'_'5y":ra sECRETARY,
~URBAN*§EVELOPMEN? DEPARTMENT,
M,s.BaILQ:N@,
. DRLAMBEDKAR VEEDI,
*. BANGEL©RE--56O 091.

'"~.2 v$3E;BAMeALoRE QE¥ELO?MENT AUTHORITY

1:;CHowDA:AH RQAD,
BANGALORE--56O 020.
"R§P.By ITS COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS

u€By Sr: M. KESHAVA REDDY, ASA FOR R1
SRI ASHWIN S.fiALABY, Asv. FOR R2}

…z…

THEE WRIT ?ETI?ION I3 FELED UNBER ER?ICLE
~26 END 22? OF TEE CGNS?ITUTE$N OF INBfRg

;RA¥ZHG TG DIRECT THE R2 TQ C$N$EEER;<?fiEF
REQUEST 09 THE PETITEONER FOR ALLO?MENTw§E,ENj ,
ALTERNATE SITE IN TERMS 0? §3TIT:oNER&sj¥.~

APPLICETIONT ET. 1?.12.2oa2 BEARING" §Q,33§§E
vgna ANNEXRUE E. _mn_ ~ '*:r * I

TEES WRIT PETITION icofiixé '.Gw E§af*T
?RELIMENARY HEARENG –~ 8 GROUP THIS EfiY;'THE"

COURT PRSSEE THE FGLLOWIN§{fiV
……………….o R n 2
I have heard the §ea;n§d é§qfisel for tha

parties.

2.:”§éfiiiioné§7 ficfiiendéw that, he was the
owner s3f.a« reVéfim§ u$ite bearing’ hause list

Mo’1E,__Ka:fia MQ}l8fi{Situat§d at Sennehaili

if$il1ag5;;Ke§geri Hbfili, Bangalore Swath Taluk,

fiaV§n§–§urcfia$¢§ the same under a sale deed

‘V’wm datédlVO8mij,f995. It is furth@r sontendad

‘Vuthat the said site has been acquired by the

Aafespcfidents fer a gmblic §UfpOS€ namely for

u”«§he5f©rmation of “Sir M.Visv@8waraiah Layout”.

« It is further contended that petitioner has

made an apfilicatimn Kdated l?.i2.2QO2 fog

ii

…3…

a

alletment of an alteraative aite in lieu cf

the acquisition of aforesaid site. ?etiti@§ar3

has pxoduced a copy of the ackn0wledQmentW$t*¥

Rnn@xur@–E, which evidences the_fi}ifig%éf the

agpiication. fer allotment o§.zi°sit%m”‘Théu§g’?t

the said agaplicaticsn was’.:’:_1ed’m 1?T’…12:«i,’2«:3.Q::,

‘?;’:”~=::- gain… has not been c<;=f1s'id£~:.?:ed bgrfl £11";

gsiid

(K3

pendent. Therefoée, he figs filéd_this writ

rag
petition seeking the féiiowihq feli%fs;"

it_§§t;tioner's agplicatisn dated
ufifi£?®l§I2QG2 bearing N0.3356$ by
. t;$uint as writ 11: the fiature

. bf mandamus, at Annexurewfi and
»'*»a€E§ pass fiuch other order or
A orders On the facts and
Circumstances 0f the cage,

inaiuding the Cost sf this

W

– 4 W

‘£103, in tha int@rest VQf _

1
justifie and equity.

3. Material On regard cléarly e5téb;iSheS

that petitionez’ has filed 7afi7_appliC$ti©n: @a”u

77 ?2.2OG? before the °?&*.resp§hd@§t. Sééking
alternative site. “It is 3L$o @yidenfi fihat the
resgondents have not d®n$i@é;@@ tha said

the and

E”?

II
IW’ ,
H; ‘ ..

ti’)
{“3
(“f

3ppli¢3tiofim~_f.Tfigr;f@r@,

resgondefit to édasidg: the said agplicatien in

acc@rdancé”wifib,lawkwithin a perigd of three
months ‘fiflm ‘th@7dé£é”¥:f receipt <15 copy of

this ogdef- it 1$'fiereby clarified that this

A-O;§er 7S56u;d not be canstrued as expxessing

a§y 0pin;0fi cm the merits of the matter. No

cosfis. "

Sd/–

Judge

KLYI