Sri Ravindra Ural vs The Bangalore Development … on 12 November, 2008

- 1 _

IN THE HIGH couam or KARnA2AKn.Am Baflafimbnz

DATED THIS THE l2fiiE%X 0? NovEMgE§}"2QQe%f\

BE€bR§_

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIdE s;A§D$L wEzsER,':j

WRIT PETITION Nd;é§3 d? 2007 {EDA} 9
BETWEEN: u V T I V

SRI RAVINDRA URAL%5__; ,_,--a;n%_

s/o. LATE MR M.P. KEsHAwA<uRAL;,';

AGED 40 YEARS ,»w»j= -_a' ';''$

NO.32, 16TH MAIN; J,c: MAsAR_ I
KURUBARAHELLEU; ' an _»j  VW

BANGALORE §<560.og5;_', .v,--- ... PETITIONER

(By smt; Jfiimi Kérfikgz; ADV.)

AND:
~:, THE BANGALQRE DEVELGPMENT
"* AQTHQRITY, CENTRAL OFFICE
,V.:;.aHbwDAIAH ROAD,
'xmxkaa PARK WEST
' BANGALORE ~ 560020.
Ra?_3y THE COMMISSIONER.

zwfig COMMISSIONER FOR DISABILITIES
_ THAMBUCHETTY RQAD
= cax TOWN, BANGALORE.

fiiw

3 THE S'E'ATE GOVERNMENT OF K..31_RN.F°xTf-XKPH

THR€)I_IGH THE} DEPT SF WOMEN

AND CHILE} DEVELOPMENT

MULT I S'E'C3RE3 YE E? BU ILDI NG

BANGALORE -Q1

REP BY ITS PRINCIFAL SECY.



-3...

Authority (Alletmeht of Site) Rules l984;fferg

short 'the Rules'). It is also evident teem' V

the allotment letter that wthe_leite' egg »

allotted under EWS scheme (Ee0eceIeaily'fieeher%¥

Section} under Rule 4 of the Rhlee et See 5f
the Value of the site. tPetitiehe§_h$S}?aid
50% of the eital uve;ue_fehulij.a,:eoi. The
petitioner filedi the "eefireeeetatieh as per
AnnexurewD te the reeeemdehte eeeking certain
Cohcessien_inr§egmeetLetaeelence of the sital
value eh the ereehd that he is ea physically

handicapped pereoeiehfifthat he is entitled for

_ allotment' of a=_eite at a consessional rate

tender, .$eetibn_ 43 of the Persons with

Disabilities Jfiqual Cpportuhities, Protection

'V, e:' Rights' end Full Participation} Act, 1995

w. {fer short 'Bisabilitiee Act'). However, the

4tp_*reeQehdents have cancelled the allotment of

"ehel eite as per Anhexure~L on 8.10.2004.

Thereafter, petitioner appears te have moved

the Commissioner for persons with disabilities





-5...

economically weaker section of the society end

he has suffered 70% of physical disabiiitgfilitet

is further argued that having tegsrfi fie the ~.l

resolution of the EDA ie _s¢;§52Q7."safiés_

23.?.2007, the sea may be difeeted ts sighdise
the cancellation erdesiteti e®nexere§L on
payment of balan&$tlafifli;¥é;_gitai velee and
execute the lease gum sale Q§EfijiN /fispect of

the said site in questieng»_"u

4};LeernedTeeunsei for the 1"" respondent

would cohtend ‘that’»the site in equestien has

~ beeni, slletted«, to the petitioner on a

i,C0fiCessie§al?rate. It is submitted that he has

ne.iebjeetiefi for the 37’ respondent to

‘,consideft the request of the petitioner is

feeeerdanee with the aforesaid circular.

“”Hdwever, it is reiterated that petitiene: has

‘ixte pay net only the balance of the sital Value

but eiso the interest at 21% of the balance of

sale consideration.