High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Puttegowda vs The Bangalore Development … on 13 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttegowda vs The Bangalore Development … on 13 August, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13"' DAY or AUGUST ;~,mT,,e _

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcERAM.M()ii'2g1$fR:3i)i§x?  A

WRIT PETITION No.£374}?3_o1Ao (l§DA)~ .  
M1sc.w.Nos.i72772,o10  A

BETWEEN:

Sri. Puttegowda»,  

S/0. Subbego§_yda¥,"  . A' 

Aged about 5'7a"ygarsr,s, , 

No.6, Ganesha"N'fl._a_yVa  

15' A Mairi  1'? 'Stage,'

K.  CoE'ony,'V 'BfasAaves'i:Wara' N agar,

Bangalore -*~   ...Petitioner.

(By,.Sr.i._ Sririixz,as '&."'Ba'<}riA Associates, Adv.)

A   Development

Authority,'K;1rnara Park East,
T. 'Chowdaiah Road,

  Bangalore,
' , Rep. by its Commissioner.

    Kemparaju,
   Son of Chowdaiah,

No.95, 2"d Cross,

BDA, Avalahalli Layout,

Girinagar,

Bangalore -~» 560 085. ...Respondents.

M

– 2 –

(By Sri.C.R. Gopal Swamy & Associates, Advs. for R1,
Sri.C.N. Keshav Murthy, Adv. for R2)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the 15′
respondent to allot the site No.287 in favour of the petitioner in
exchange of Site No.280 situated in 2nd Block, Jnanabharathi
(Valagerahalli Layout), Bangalore. ” v

Misc.W.No.2727/2010 is filed under Section ‘_1:S’t::of.CP:C” as

praying to vacate the interim order, Tforsthe ~:reaso1_1s_V’stateVd.
therein. ” ‘ ‘

This Writ Petition and Mis”c~..W. coming_on_for_:’orders this V it

day, the Court made the followingu:s_¥’ _

This petition though_Vlistedi.’ifdr v’aeati~rig. the interim order,

with consentolif’tthec»learnled counsel for both the parties, it is

finally heard andcdispo–$ed~~–iiof by this order.

” ‘ Having regard to the averments set out in the counter

l3.08.20l0 that the l” respondent ~– The

Eta-n_galore.i9i’evelopment Authority would allot to the petitioner

siyte No;-2.84 in II Block, Gnana Bharathi Layout as an alternate

_l ‘.si’te’,’i for which the petitioner’s counsel has no objection,

” “Tl§eTothing further survives for consideration in this petition and is

accordingly disposed of. One month’s time for compliance.

M