1
IN THE HIGI*I COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATEE TI-IIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 29.10
BEFORE T
THE HONBLE MRJUSTTCE RAM MOHAR5. -
WRIT PETITION No. 2114_SmO_F 29:0 (BEA) _ %
BETWEEN A '1' 'V " A
SR1. K S SFIADAKSHARAIAH .
Age:80 V --
S/O K SAVANDIAH *
NO.558, STHNIAIN, "
BANGALORE 40. ..
.' ' PETITIONER
[By Sri : M S BH_AC_zWA'I"&"§:I?AV'AN_I§T§HQQDV.)
AND
1. BANGALORE"DEVELCPMENTVAUTHORITY
}?;E'P'RES1l:NTE£)'BY~.IaTS COME/IISSOINER
KUMARA RA1RKvWES'T.,__ . '
BANO»ALOREE:2Q.'T' '
2. DEPUTY SEcRE'AR'{..~[RE~cONvEYANcE ANE
; RE_--ALLOE1v1ENT) '
,3 GALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMMKA PARK WEST BANGALORE 20.
._ RESPONDENTS
(B.&3.z”sr1../SEE ‘;’U:=\’}IS1–1NU 1:) BHAT FOR R1 3: R2)
” UPETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 (‘St 227
OF THE”cONS’m’U*EO1\z OE INDEA PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENTS TO RE~»ALLOT/REACONVEY THE SITE
*NO.–m MEASURING EAST TO WEST 40 FEET, NORTH TO
SOUTH 70 FEET, IN SURVEY N08 OF’ GERAHALL1
LA
‘3
VELLAC-E, KASABA HOBL1, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PRESENTLY COMING UNDER BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
SRINIVASNAGARA, 2ND PHASE EX’I’EN~S__iON.
CORPORATION DIVISION NO.3I, BANG_AL_CiRE,
FORTHWITH.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.=s§:ARiVNO”‘i{s’§e
GROUP} THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE. ~i?OLjL-Ow1N_O; -« .,
ORDER”;
It is not in dispute that
revenue site No.10 rneasui~ii–:1§’*~43;O ‘ft,”oi;1t of
Sy.No.8 of Gerahaili,r’p.i’eSen’tIyi.iB’stifi3,shaiika1’i”‘iiI Stage,
Srinivasanagar II formed by
the Authority {for
Short Rizamongst other Sites,
incluciifigw Bhoomalakshmamma
and .–‘at)peaIS that in a claim of
reco:w¢eyarice_V’ Bfzoomalakshmamrna and
“Vi’–v.,M,’i¥1.:Shakunta1SAviéiieiee allotted Sites out of which a
V”e~;ietitiOner’S site was also allotted to
Bh-O_m1f_n’a1skShmamma and as a dispute arose between
the oetitioner and Bhoomalakshmamma as weli as
. it ‘i1\:/i;»N.:Shakunta1a resulted in institution of
-~–O§.S.No.2123/1983, whence the City Civil Judge by
H
3
Judgment and decree dt. 4.1.2010, having notiee’dflt,h’a,t
the petitioner had not obtained a reconveyancepf
said site, dismissed the Suit. Y:et””a’no.th*er
admitted is that the respondent:¥’l3Iln_’–l§_iA.lwasgnot a
defendant to the said Suit an:d«therefore,=. V
any advantage over the Suit.”
2. In eonte§<tua1.~vfae:t}%) was entitled
to a of X 70 ft. having
lost for the formation of
the layout the allotment of a portion of
that site to_Bhvoo1nail(sh:ifnamma. As on date admittedly
the.~§;r.enia.ining"'—;:po_rtie«n of the site belonging to the
pet-itioner, '«..is'vincapable of being used for a residential
purposelanjdftlherefore, there is a need to direct the
respondent–l3DA to allot a site to the petitioner either in
llv~:lf*thel'\:.eryl same layout or in a developed layout, of equal
' dimension or approximately the same dimension, and if
it the dimension is larger, the petitioner to pay the value
to the extent it is larger.
M
In that View of the matter, the writ p€titiG},’.V1V:'”i.§ _:. -.
ordered accordingly.
Four months time is granted 7:0 t-héglféTs15oiidé:i’g~.___
EDA for compliance.
In.