High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri A A Kanakaraj vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri A A Kanakaraj vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
EN THE HIGH coups: OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
fluted am the 12*' day efAa.gust, zoes

Before

I1IEIION'Bl.EMRJUS7ICE HULUVADI G    

me: was 373/ 290:  ' 
Sri A AKanakm-aj, 64yrs
S/0 A v A Shcatty

# 27111, Skandeah, 17* Main

11"'Bcnm,:1>Naga:1mme  _  " 

(ByS:iBLSan_95ecv,Adv.)

    .. Respondent
   Naraymmz Rae, Adv.)

"   kiss;  " is filed lander Art.226i227 oar the cauumsaa

1 V . pray1ng'  to   to reconvey the schedule site to fie petmonu,' '

 imwdtrmumm conaingonforP1'ciiz:$anaI'yIiea'i1gIl3isday,fl1e

   the fono-mg' ,-



ORDER

Pctxhon” ‘u$edseekingfctr|ssmce’ d”amané%todIIect’ the

mspmnientwrwtmwyfiwschnshIlesfiemflnepeiiti:mcr(xh11he§&§§§i..fi§w

eomammanmwsamofmmammmmnmammgecaazgigfifigie.

ailotment of the schedule site to any othet gamma

Petmon” erclanm’ tohawbeenpu*<.'.hsed " amvmuw " 93

+ 96 n x 2 x 40 11 famed 'm Bangalorc

during 1963 cm: had acqmacd the
land in thc year I972., purchased the resume mas
themselves fotmcd the xwmm seeking for
12.19.1973 aims maponaem, it was

sites to that owacrs and also the EA

=r__1.1.39s9. amiher mwiution dated 22.4.1974, i was mom:

by knpoinmg mwcanveyaacc dug afRs.l6 par sq.fi.

'o&;sirsaa1$aemamadraatmfi.vauemc:csponaeam negemuesuwym
' &acsifles,aaseasedmeooa'reapon:mg' BDAsitemnham

convey the site of the petitioner i.e., an-. No.76

' am Site No.S33. Amougtmz has 'V

chages to the BDA and also in spite efaevefal :1'

not considered by the EDA Hence,
I-Ieanl me eel .

Penman’ ‘ er’s counsel n’g1ed VA ems made ’21 the

petm’ ’01; and also upon_. ‘ in WP 197so12oe7

mm – .m….- ~ ihenem’ em. .

penod’ of :1 “dajteof receipt’ of the order.

‘the made in collnaitm with the EDA

mend, steps haw been taken by imfmiling 1 con

played on the respondent and, such me-conveyance

3 isnnei4’mtai§¢iaeemdinglyscflxu1inedalthnughaBRQmt1mbea1filedby
z:Qn,”ea;hmebubemmmmerea’ mum’ “‘&IaIlyk’3takeappmptiatc

DEV’

It is seen in annular’ ‘ cn’cnmstanee’ 3., this Court

documents in respect of the sites: mama ‘”a*nd.£o mpm fso T 4′

Anmority afta examm’ M me a.,.;..m.

conveymce charges is also said to ;1upe¢,tw L’

ofsite No.76 (New No.24). yfme Q mi; regard,
arm already taken, the am mg Committee. Man so
because the case oft!-as ma pm-Jmea
the u , than was 3 ‘ ‘
by me CITB . axpr%’ 9:; opinion as *0 the decisive:
to be tespondem athodty so consider
rm case suhmgu.-.a to the conmuee, for

cxe::uii.<::2 of in respect of site No.16 {new No.24}, if

obsenm' mm" isdnpneed' of.

Sd/-~
Judge