High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Usha Ramesh vs Bangalore Development Authority on 14 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Usha Ramesh vs Bangalore Development Authority on 14 July, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
m THE HIGH com? or KARNATAKA AT BANGA1.o1§3
Dated thisthe 14" any army, 2908  
Before '--  _
1?HI:'HON'BLE MR JUSTICE Iaafar-2I;W.=.a.1)1-'_   
H61': Petition 7662 /      

Smt Usha Ramesh, 3731-s

W:'oGNRamesl1

R/aCf'oSudhamaP1i21ters

#105,5"'MainRoad   ;

De. Javarcgowda R9941  _  '

Bangalere 5600136 },-- .    "    Petitioner

(By Sri H s  '  ) )3§?i    &

And:

1 B@lom Bevelopmcnt 
By its Comrnissioner _   "
T capwaaiah  3; P West

    "  ..... 

2  ' Dépaty  
*- Bangalom  Authority
III Division,"  560 020 Respondenm

  (151; Sn' K  Adv. for ma)

    "W1it Petition is filed imdu Art,.226/227 of me Comtitwtion
* ."w.._pm ing'w!p quash the order ¢hted17.2.20G*6 »- mmeamre A, etc.

 T  WritPetition cmt1i1tgonforP1elixnitm'yhca1*ingtIIis<1zy,the
 Cputtmade the following: _,

 



ORDER

Petitioner has mm: for quashing the :1ii;:2..zoe§’ ex

annexure A by the zespondent EDA caneelieag

of the petitioner under the ,

bearing No.1634 in SMV Nags: mm 6’x.9 gm-;
Heard the owl A ”

According _tt1f: ti2e_ income as bciow
Rs.I1,0()0f- aiiotment of site under me
she had mentioneni her
considered her 4″ attempt, the
respondent wa required to pay Rs.49,9fl0/- and
accord’mgiy,Ls.he the” of 13.4.2004. However, Ihezefler, the

3 at:!er'”eeme re on the ground that the petitioner comes

‘ and does not came under the ceomm1ca1l’y’

” R,is the submission of the respondent’s counsel that ‘madvertentIy

__ eilotment was made and even as per the notification imeft; peaitimwr
2 ” -. entitled for chum” mg’ alioanent under the economically weaker section
“category as the income of her mum is admittedly Rs.7s,eoez’-. The

allotment is only made for the economically weakcr section M

income is below Rs.1l,800f- per year and

allotment has been mafi against me ” _

In the interest of justice, to pi-omtjiiizc it1teréfi£_6f~.t1i£2 who V

has many made four atternpig for Aancaa§g¢~;;:%%k’Ao§M a s«i’tAé,V”fhe’ respondent
authority aha}! consider the eifieamder the
economically weakgzf if she is found
eligble for and if the sites are
available of on smiority under the

gum} cztegry the “in. withiaw.

P’et’xi9tgis” “us No com.


M/--»

      L    Iudqe,