IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated: This the 8*" day Of November 20}:f(:)' -Eu BEFORE _ 2 % THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.JAG_A_\I.}}IAT}iANA W.P.NO.16783/2007 4' A ~ 7 BETWEEN: SR1 H B RAMAKRISHNAIAH, V. ' S/O LATE BYRALINGAIAH, I AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT-.NO._«1306;'- ., , EST" CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAl\--'I. ; " ' BANGALORE--560 021. -- _ A " ' PETITIONER (By Sri N T..I5RE§'§&I\TATF}i, :A3s'ERT§) -,_. THE 4COM1\rII[S.SIO.NER', BANGALORE "DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHQWDAIAH' ROAD, , - BANGAI-.QRE~56=0 020. I GANGACH "" A ' "R1 L. s_/'O LINGACHARI, AGE MAJOR, T' W E R III STAGE, «A I BL'OCK=.. MANJUNATHA NAGAR. BANGALORE. ' ' RESPONDENTS
– ~;By4_sr£’V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1.
_ SR1 ‘JAGADEESR MUNDARGI, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 1.6.
BDA TO EXECUTE ABSOLUTE SALE DEED IN RESPECT
[NJ
OF THE PROPERTY/SITE BEARING No.22/A SITUATED
AT WEST OF CHORD ROAD IST BLOCK, III Vs’I’AG_E.
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE MEASURING 5
WEST 17 + 25’/ 2 FEET NORTH TO SOUTH : ‘
FAVOUR OF’ THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ONEOR HEA.RiNG
DAY, THE COURT MADE Tl~Ii’§’,_:lF~f_)LLC5V»’IN(I~;A ”
Heard learned for the
1st Mundargi for
the 2nd for the petitioner
and 5 some time even after
Completion by the respondents
CQIAHSEJ. there’ was no indication of petitioners
. ‘e0u11se1..a1;§pearing before this Court. Under the said
u ~Ci’1*Ctunist’anCe’sV, no other option was left than to
prO’Cee’d vhvith the matter.
2. At the outset, learned Counsel Sri.
___Shivakurnar for the BDA submitted that the relief
sought by the petitioner involves going to the factual
aspect of the matter, in as much as, though»-.___the
petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus v:to.fl’t.h’e.
1912 respondent BDA to execute the E1bSO1UiZf%u’.:”SEt:}e;:
in respect of the property/:’si’te’~bearingfp’:’NoV;22>i°i”p
situated at West of Chord Road,:1i__B1och,»_.3F<*
Rajajinagar measuring West. 2
feet North to South'. 6(3"""ieet4,.'VV:a.._A.peruVsa1'i"Vjof the
documents filed by both.' taken in
the objectio.r1s:.gby to show that
number the BDA had aiso
issued became the subject
matter. before this court in
W.P.NO.2§Z'G8i/89 fwherein this court had quashed
" '~ _ ficanvcellationf deed.
‘ from the aforesaid facts, it is also
the stand of the BDA that, the site which the
» peti.tioner claims is a non existent one and this is also
clear from the Various suit proceedings. Referring to
if the suit filed by the petitioner himself in
3/:
O.S.No.1770/81, submission made is, the said ___suit
was filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration
that the petitioner is the owner of the *
property bearing site No.43«A..4in nu
Saneguruvanahalli village and’ eaiso A’ ‘ , i .
mandatory injunction. Ir;-the sai”d__suit,V it
the 15″ respondentv,BI.V)A, was
also one of the defent1a_n’ts’ came to
be dismissed;::p;Again:;VV’ filed by the
petitioner” /82 against one
suit an order of
granted in favour of the
present petitioner against the 2″” respondent herein.
eounseilwireferred to the suit filed in
82 wherein the parties were one and
the same as the court found that the identity of
the property has to be found out by having a survey
A’ fconuducted, a Commissioner was appointed and the
= ..<Commissioner was also not able to identify the suit
property. Under all these circumstances, as the very
5
existence of the site itself has become doubtful, this
court in Writ jurisdiction cannot go into this aspeetof
the matter.
4. Submission of Sri. Jagadeeslt:Mundargi_:ll
for the 2nd respondent is thatathe’.fifllnlfellation’*e
issued by the EDA was called inlllquestion:”t:y’v:the jam:
respondent in W.P.No.22{;3:8l..e:/ court
allowed the said the deed of
cancellation was quashed)’ V
5i*he fesjpondéfit it herein also filed writ
petition!betoreV.’t}iis”‘co’urt in W.P.No.1ii2a/08 and
the ..1S’~’ r’e”spondent’- –$BDA herein was directed to
i = pelXeCeu–te the safievdeed in favour of the 2m’ respondent.
Having regard to the aforesaid factors,
this. mater where findings will have to be
iippreeorded on disputed question of facts a.nd as such,
lgthis court cannot go into the said aspect of the matter
in a writ jurisdiction.
9%?’
For the aforesaid reasons. writ p6:tition “»Tis
dismissed.
Dvrz