High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramakrishna S/O Late Sathanur … vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramakrishna S/O Late Sathanur … vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit


-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BAHGAIBRE

omen “nus ‘rue 27″‘ DAY as MAY 2993* . K

PRESENT

THE I-IOEPBLE MR. pun. DIHAKAl?.1=u’i’,’–GHIEF.:§?iI§TiCE7.’

AND
THE Hon’nLE

WRIT APPEAL Ng,1s7c_)%«;$r”A’20& Z (LA:-8m;1

BETWEEN:

1 SRIRAMA1{.}%;’£.$H1;§$f)%§;’ ~ ‘j M %
S/O LATE%sA::,.*HA’N:2.R E€I;;}Ni’S.HAIvIAPPA

JAKKUR .vIL’LAr:;1-3_””- ” ”

YELAHANI<_A}ia13L:.V '

BANGALORE NR’IH Ifawéi’
. ._ APPELLANT

_Sri r~;Afr.«=x_:a>AJ; “Amz:;>cATE)

ANi}”-if ‘V

1 THE s’1*¢»es.’:’Ei’»%%<'3J;«* KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT 0:? HOUSING 3:.
UREA?-1_.i)EVELOPMENT
M SBUILDING
" BANGALORE}
3/ BY rrs SECRETARY

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHGRWY
KUMARA PARK WES'?

BANGALORE

BY ITS COMMISSIONER

3 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ”
BANGALORE QEVELOPMENT AU’i’HORI’I’Y.~…_
KUMARA PARK wrssu’ :

BANGALORE

4 THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ‘ ” .

No.21, GROUND FLOOR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 550 00:: _

R]BY ms SECRETARY”– ~ -.

% ijj * Rj§::*§PoNnENTs
(By SMT: NILQUEER Af§§§:ARé«A§}.§.) :1′ V ”
THIS wRITT.Qsg1;éPé;6;;:;-is-»1§*n.Eb “Uj’é; 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
men comm AC1′ PI2AY_I%!G”§_’0- .313′? ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE wR1′:*1APEfr1′:”I0NAj1~:L<Q;T3<;~9z9/ 2.009 DATED 17/041 2009.

THIS Wf§'i*T AP'?-E:A1., " 'C§OMING up FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING;"G3\¥ TH-3S 'DAY', THE comm DELIVERED ms: __

§?c«.;VLoxsfxfa(}E:_gV' ~ ….. .2624/2005 o/w 2625/21305

dated 25.11.2005 in The Commissioner, B.D.A.

vs. State of Karnataka, by its Secretary _

2006 KAR 313).

2. Hearé the iearned eounSe].__gppea_ring L.

3. Under simiiar fecte’ of the case,
this Court by order. dated” ” Writ Appeals

No.1484– 1486 it –¢§éa# the apprehension

of éispoesessiefi .. filerein who were simiiariy
placed as is unwarranted as they are

already geotected the eariier order of the Division beach of

zéfi Cemm ”’ H issioner, B.D.A. and others vs.

by its Secretary and others {ILR

v”¢;- “?Q06 35%).

ii: the instant case, the learheci Single Judge has

‘ . , _ _ V[ that the petitioner had not availed the benefii ef the

eefiier order of the Division Bench of this Court in The

.’ \

-4-

Commissioner, B.D.A. and others as. State of Karnaxaka,

by its Secretary and others (ILR 2006 KAR

other hand, the learned counsel for the V’

contend that he had availed the befiefit’ of”-the ‘of T 1

said Division Bench of this Ceurt. ‘that

considered opinion, his right ig’~~._#}m3dy WHence,V

there is no need to grant ‘i:1teI’i’fiVi’Are1ief in the
Writ petition.

{ail/1′ F’–5-v*;fr*’§,r_§
~«.«- . E65 . ;..’..:: ;.;».,.:;;,,

S;e%

é “i’33{iex:’AYe.s/ Ne

‘ ‘ — . fieett’ Yes] No

.-