High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M Shankar Reddy S/O Munireddy vs Karnataka Industrial Area … on 25 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri M Shankar Reddy S/O Munireddy vs Karnataka Industrial Area … on 25 July, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH comm' OF' KARNATAKA AT BATN§:§;gLVc§§§jE«._ 3

DATEE) THIS THE 25TH DAVE)?  "   "

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUs*firj.§E»A 5 Bi)PA'P$--§¥A 

WRIT PETITION Ni:»;... fi1368.'}[%2€§i§5 "(LA-KIAi§B)AVV
BETWEEN: H " '   " 

SEE M SHANKAI? 5:311:23; sxio Iviutsziflgtfizzw 
AGED 42 ¥EARs,?_oc:;:»V'r;::,   _  " 
R,fA'I' BAmENALLz'sAN:35 VELLAGE  
HULL&MANAPAm--:'fij}SF * » _  
GINGANE HQ3L1;vANE'az_=;L'rALigK ' 
BANGALCYRE RU 23;. DE7S{l'R'_IC*1f.'

,,. PETITEONER

{By Sri : cnafizygaafiaxag' 'i{?AT1L, AE}'v',)

        

 1  " :»s:A::z.mTA;{A INDUSTRIAL AREA

 I)E"~iTE:L{E¥P}\¥iEV¥~e§T BOARD
«A v.'I.T.c..'.§3Ui:.DING, 18'? moo?
.._y:sv,asH_<;aARA¥YA MUSEUM {NEAR} W.H.
§{aS"?H[}'Rf BA Roam
BA~:~;cmLoRE2 .

A $2  I SPECIAL LAND ACQUiSI"{'¥ON omega

'--QVIMANA NILDANA)
mane, KASTURIBA R AD
BANGALGRE

'0



In'!

3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSEONER
K.I.A.D.B.
KASTUREBA ROAD
BANGALORE 

£3» ANEL KUMAR   .. 
AGE: MAJOR  
PROPRIETOR 01? M 15. ELE,GA.N'{A '
No.24, NAGAFPA STREET 
PALACE GU'I"}'AI-IALLI
BANGALORE-560 003  _     

.   '  " V  RESPGNDENTS

(By SR11::BoREG0wDA,Am?}.JF0R--7'    
SR!BASAVARAJ.VSABA.§ZAD=FORR1-4R3 ' '

sI=:I13.M. ARU.i'£,§k@V, §;»§:3R?R§g-1   '

THIS WR1'?I;E:ETIT;0:§ Ea §«='ILE.D UNDER ARTICLES 2126 83
227 OF' "THE QOf€ST1T"L§T1'Q_N"'*--.£3?' mam, WITH A PRAYER
TO:DIRECf'-THE ¥e;31'ro 1f:gLEfrE...T:-IE LANDS BEA¥e1N(:. SY.NO.41,
MEASUR§NG"5I'O=AN'EX'i'Et'?!'"Q? 13 GUNTAS AND sY.m::.41/1,
MEASURING  C:UN'1'A'e 2:u<;,"i*zfszE1;.'3r._V "

H <   1i.tVF§é:Vt:fi;t:iou coming on far hezzaztixlg, this day, the

  (3ouft.44n1ad,v;.t"_hgj;:; foliowing:

ORDER

” V. x ‘T ‘T313 izetitiencl’ is befom this Court seeicing 1’01’ issue of

I» ‘éffiiandamus directing the 3″‘ respondent to dchstc the

” bearing Sy”.N0.4i measuring ts} an extent of 18 guntas

HI
.

and Sy.No.41]1 meaamting 29 guntas of

viiiage, Jigani Hobli, Anekai Taluk am; the ggqu%iéi:2i«:i:fg:3a ” M’

fuflhcr prayer is aiso made: to
t:o115’x1e1* flit: mpitsentafion cia?.*fx:I..__
30.8.2906 which are at An11e:;{iI%;fs}~;°;§’ Hto thifi

2. Hea1*d j§I§a;1E.z;aé;ai3r11£i’ l€3.I’I1Ed Sezlimr

Cc:u::1se1 Cha1.1d1*ashckar Patti,
learned c:t”m1is;c1Vf:)i4 Sri D Borcgowda, learned

ccunscl ap;$e2=V1Ai11gV ‘crgu of Sfi Basavaraj Sabaiad,

ftfri’ T€f.S}_)011fl61]t N03. 1 to 3 and Sri BM.

‘,” lcargédi for respondent No.4.

z head the respective Ieaxzued counsel, I haw?

V’ writ papers.

4. Tim pefitiozler ciajmillg to be 315 3011 of Smt.

u :Sa10ja1:t:1:u::a, who was the e:xw111:-:1′ of the lands bearing Sy.No.

J:

‘-u

41 measming 18 gtmtas, Sy.No.40/ 1 measuring ti)

of 29 guntas of Badczlallasandra village, digani A’ M

Taiuk, corntends that in the p1*£)pc:I”ty bcarittig b

exists a temple of ‘Shcmi Devam’. jvthgt _

which have been acquinad from the m($i3;¢%i*..is not V

the petitioner at prtment claims 1*e§.peét of
the pmpeifics at Sy.N0wi1__ a11d ‘S}i 1 fiicltfoxt

sec-ks dtzletion cf the same

9..-

aa. T315′ have filed fhe:i:r objercriion

statemcmt .V the acqugisitian has; attainal

of of the iand being taken on

and the details of the allcxtulellt of

piotfi-x industries in the lands hearing

‘Sy.Y¥fl.’?5i>Q Sy.No.4i an: Iindicated in the objectian

V V ‘ as-tafemcnt.”

6. Howtzver, the lcaxtued Senior Counaei appea1*:i;ng on

[behalf of the pcfifioncr would ztfczr to the repzlesentation

i

4
‘I

made: initiafly by the metlmz” 0f the petitioner ‘
by the petiizicgmcr. He also mfem to~~t11_:
mmmunicafion addmased by the if

Offioer to the Special Deputy Coifiinissidfief tat: .fl:Eat

fhcare is an inditzatzion in the that
there exists a tcmplfl in $y=;.¥;i0,4’;’¢La,11c3M. occupation in
Sy.Ncs.40/ 1. 911 {he View that

insofar as fly; éf ‘;fV»:§ii’;§i¢:-rties and the

possszasipzibf bé£i:ti”‘t;’é;kcn by the Karnataka
I3udust11a1 ‘.A1t,€;s’ (for short the KIADB},

tllcrc wen though the petitioner

_~ .£2DI1t€I1€i7L;$ that oo1:.£ti*a13{_§;9vthc same, caozusidcring the fact that

Iiave’ allotted to the eligible imiustrics and the

vfiigr :A:.er;u§éVs£.”_0f petit3’c3:m:1~ is ts) delete and Ie–convey.

V’ $:}.:1e* of assaifing the: very aeqtfisitiou at this

u “not arise. Hmszcwzl’, consideléng the fact that an
éétffiiifisifiou ii! the present case and While fmmialg the link
thmugh the lays-ut and on coicasicicrzing the fact that the

pctitiozxttr contends that Sy.N0.-41 exists in the area which

L

V:

was utiiieed for formation of the road and in 3 p0:1:ie;1V~.ihefe.n

exiscts a small temple and to establish this jj .

petitioner has produced certain pi1oteg1*api1s”b:ei’a::(€’V:: this u

Court, 311 that cmlid be ordered in this At

the respondent Nos. 1 tr; 3 to e(3:1eidefV’i;I_3ve

whether a tempie exists on _ {flew the
easrlier observations A’ in ‘ dated

18.9.2006 addressed by the Ofiieer

to the — and on such factual
detenniz1§ifiofi..if to the cozlelusittm that

there existed’ a Vifithe same can be deleted in any

the formatiolx of the layout formw

such an event, the KJADB shall act

the petitioner in this regard. This

fifitiot be understood as a direction to delete the

K x ” abutvwis only a dilection to eonsider the lepxesentafion

tepf “‘;r1:;:;—: “gietitioner in respect of Sy.No.4i of the saici village,

T –«’..:ivhetrein the peijfionez” contends that there exists a tempie

“and the feasflxdiity or oflxerwise to accede to his request. It is

7′.

‘*-I

aim made clear that if the KIADB has t1;c.x ‘ * ~

industries and if any ar the mdusuignsts éydsfiessipn T

cf the plots, the pefitionel’ $11.33} got “adv9;1i:1g¢é t§f
Eresent 0:11:23′ as a lever to disturb’v’V%’91 ii’ sand’
allcvtces since the fight is’: %%:1;¢., em:en: mkxiéamd in

this (mien

With t}1t.:4.:.=.§§:>«’::::sr§:_;=: this petition

stands

Sd/-2
Iudgé