IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGA1.QRE
DATED THIS THE read my 01:' DECEMBER "
BEFORE
THE HOBPBLE MR. JUS'HCEv'AJYP A
WRIT PETITION N0.14975/E3_Gi)8(B_13A,) 3 %
BETWEEN :
S/o.Latc Doddafllaysippa, ''
Aged about 71 yams, 1
2. S1i.Seefl1a1'aIr;gi§<éh. ._ V VA
S/abate .F3fi<1d*3¥11aY3PP9a.
Aged ahoiu}: " :
S/o.Lat1: 'Dodd "'aayap f
Aged abémt 33 years;
. A AV11L%azwe:R_z%at Paxya,
Bangalore
% .VSo11th._VTa1u}Vé, --.l_-Bangalore. ...PETITIONERS
" A : '(By Adv.)
ofKarnataka,
of Revenue,
M.S..Bui1ding,
Veedhi,
Bangalore -- 560 00 1,
Rep. by its Secretary.
.2-
2. The Bangalore Development
Authority, 'I'.Ch.audaiah Road,
Kumaraparak West,
Bangalore ----- 560 020,
Rep. by its Commissioner.
3. The Ex-»Serv1'cc Men House
Building Co-operative
Societies Ltd.,
No.472/25, 8*" Cross,
KHB Colony, 23*' Stage,
Basaveswaranfi,
Bangalore -- 569 079,
Rep. by its President. _
{By Sri.Keshava Raddy'; }'i(}A.fo;§f'I2'i;-Vf,':o
S1:i..V.Y.Kumar, Adxotbxf R2) 1 ' '
This wxit"opctijt.io1i*§i.:is filed 1l1'l€i6i"' AI'LiC1£':S 226 and
227 of the Constit1jtion_ of I1*:dia.___witi1 a prayer to issue a
writ or o1'dcI"_or4_dii't:iCt§.on nature of mandamus
and direct the R1, mnsidcr the request of the
petitioners datcd"'6.8.2O{)7A~s_ri(i<:" Anncxurc 'F'.
" '~ mffit coming on for preliminary
hean'ng,v.tI1is_V(1sag§'.,'Ai:1r1c Court made the following:
ORDER
— Immed counsel is directed to take
‘* .. é 1 for fespondent No. 52.
a sat ofpapers on him.
” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to
-3.
3. The petitioners claim that they are the owners
and in possession of Sy.No.3/2 measuring 8 acgfgé
guntas and 4/1A2 measuring 2 acmes 34
situated at Hosahalli, Uttarahal}1′,j’ E V’
Taluk. It is not in dispute that tiso :
sought to be acquired in ihvoor the
Society for the purpose “of
distribution of sites to its of the
petitioners that: the
Societies not the Bangalore
membership and
releases the sites in favotxr;
4… time of the petitioners that the
of 11.3.1′. House Building Co-
?/s. Syed xhadcr and others
1995 SC 2244 has quashed the
Nprocoedings in respect of H.M.’l’.House
Co-operative Society. The git-“Nance of the
V is that they are also similarly placed. They
would also oontmd that they have given’ an application fl
I
/3»
.
Q
the afleged possession of the petitioners
An’ ‘VT hot arise.
to the State Government seeking de-notification of the
}ands acquired. Another grievance of the
that rwpondent No.3 is trying to interfere _
possession.
5. Mr.M.M.Swamy, t
the petitioner submits that the ~”ibrflT§deV-
notification is pending 1. A ‘State
Government since V 20074 that
respondent No.3 with the
possessien of
5. ApVpamv1__ emy,m¢[emaa:sm;m have filed a suit in
0.s.No.695/2003′ ash’ the am pespondent for
“su.i1.:…ie still pending. When the suit
of the subject matter of this Writ
the of this Court granting an order of
.. the 31” respondent
7. In so far as the direction to the State Vi$–.
concerned, it is to be natioed that the said
seeking demotification is given on 06.08.2007,” ‘ K
which is produced at Annexure
repzmentation is given as per A:nnexu1_. _ 1’13?’., V’
reqmred’ to consider the same ” » rdaircé;
Conmucntly, foflowing O§’a€’I_’ is . ., _ ‘V
(a) The prayers at (b)
(b)’l’he 15* mspgzjderint shafil ‘F’
in regard to the
pmfiisiongi Act.
(e) cf’ accordingly.
3. m.K¢g1zara ,:2eaay,..[jma:uona; Governmeri:
Advocate fa’ 1 permitted to file mt:-xmo
Qgapm» 5A”;~vii:.*:j;1fc2:jf”v:§vécks
leamw counsel appearing’ for
L men: m2%isTpammna° to file his power in the
weelm.
sd/-{
i Judge
.1731-3