Sri N Shivanarayanappa vs The Commissioner on 26 October, 2009

BETWEEN:

M 1 M
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF OCTOBER. 2009
BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. ?A'm..._v  Q

WRIT PETITION No.2251O 01+' 2009 (BioA)f    ~

1. Sri.N.Shivanarayanappa,

S/0 Nanjappa,

Aged about 41 years,

R/at Sédarth nagar,
Shidalgzitéa Town 8: Taluk,
Chikkaballapura Disvtxfiet.

SInt.Nar'ayanamma, ._  9

W/0 Kad:'rappa.._  '

D/0 Na1'1jappa--,_   'V    
Aged about  years,   _  " 
R/at: Dorfidaihei§a};al1i-.3ri1lage;"'  
Basettihaili I~3..ob_11, Shidalagatta Taluk,

Chikk--ahaE1éIpurépIDistrict, PETITIONER

[By sns-1.v';--1~;neshnLs. _1\'2i{:rt1s1ijz_;e' Adv.
for HfP_,Le1'n I-Iegde. Adv.)

Banga_Io1*eL__ V

The ~~Re"!g<ir11ue Officer,

_ South--*Divis'ion.

Banga1c:;:*¢;: Development Authority,

 V V' Banashzmkari Commercial Compiex.
 Bangalom.

RESPONBENTS

=5=**



This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 ('St 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for entire records pertaining
to endorsetuerit issued by the respondent No.2 dated l.0".?f.2009

and etc. it

This Petition coming on for Preliminary

this day, the Court made the following»

0RDEfi”~

1. In this writ petition, petitioners

€I1dOI’S€fIl(‘,.’}1’l’ dated 10.77.2009» -tsistied Ab.}’,’_tli*f’3VV Officergl

Bangalore Development.’ ‘(for short, Vpfthe BDA’),
Bangalore, sizating that by the petitioners
seeking trt=.mst’er of the lahatiof their favour upon

the death oI’_l.ste camfiot biementertained in View of
the legal ttlt?itt»tAt:e:igtvei~i’g byfthse-Lav}’_’ortteer of the BDA.

2. PE§t,l!’.§€)n6I’S’ elaiA§fn_llbtieat’»«tkiey are the brother and sister of

late N.1\/it-1:33-rlérgapa» was the allottee of the site bearing

Phase, lst Block, Banashankari.

l_£Xte_nsi.o’t:-.,:it-ti’eas”qiring East to West 11 metres and North to

9 r;stt>’tr.es¥. They further assert that the BDA executed a

“.registered’j.Sa.le Deed in respect of the said site in favour of

A on 27.1.2003. The said Mariyappa died on

2§t.s.200s. According to the petitioners, Mariyappa was

rriet’.l and has not left behind any other legal

l–flLl 3 W
representzmve except petitioners herein. They also assert that
deceased ivlariyappa was an employee of the State Bank of India

and he had nominated the petitioners herein for receliv-irlg the

gratuity. in support of this assertion, Annexure-CW4′

issued by me State Bank of India isHproduce*d’.’v- that p

the p€ti'{i(‘..}I’}t:”}.”S being sole surviving legal. representativesu.lof

deceased :\iai~iyappa are entit]»ed__.for tiansfer ‘their.

name in n3s;.>ect of the propertyl4d’h_e1d._gghylldeoeasedlivl/Iariyappa,
they made a representation. 1:0 the Wand}-eSp0ndent_
Revenue Officer of the the impugned
endorsement is rejected based on

the advice gi*::en_:.i53: the EDA.

3. Th._e:'(ii’– nofghyidng 4’in_.”‘Arinexure~A to indicate on what
grounds il’1i”4i1*llrfeqguest. i’s_i_jejected. Therefore, the impugned

€I1CiQr_§’:’3€’vI1″I’L’i’il vvhi-ch is devoid of any reasons is liable to be set

as’id_e oniilmiu’ Very ground.

t:%’;«{§9’_”_petiff;ioners were required to produce any material in

V . respect in claim that they are the sole legal representatives

the decruataed. the BDA ought to have called upon them to file

si,1ch”maier§2.1ls. Instead of calling upon them to produce the