High Court Karnataka High Court

Venkatesh vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 29 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 29 October, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
i
IN THE HIGH COURT Or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK 5. HINCHIQIERIECEEVI  ' 4_
WRIT PETITION N0.16O46[2O1»0.._(§_§1§I1'i"I    

BETWEEN:

Venkatesh,

Aged about 25 years,

S/o Muniyappa, _
Bagaiur Village, Jala Hobii, .
Bengaiooru North Taluk,

Bengaiooru District.

3 V'  _Ga'n.d:i'1i;I-agar,
 ,Benge|oO.ru 4v.56O O02.

 Petitioner

The Spectai. Land AC'qO'is.iti'on'Officer,
Karnataka 1 nd ustriai AArea':3.
Deveiopmerit Board,  ' "
ITIV,F_§}oor, Khefii-'Building,

Adult, M ;
S/o''Miiiappa'.

.  C!'Ia.nna'poa,
 'AIduI't_;

  S/O Miiiappa.

 ""SEi.Nos.2 and 3 are R/o Bagaiur Viiiage,
* Eaia Hobii, Bengaiooru North Taiuk,

Bengaiooru District.  Respondents

2

(By Sri P.iVi. Siddamallappa, Advocate for
M/s. Mylaraiah Associates for R-2 and R~3)

This writ petition is filed under Articies 226 and 227.o’f.,the
Constitution of India praying to direct the R1 to congi~d_e-it his
representation dated 2.4.2009 vicie Annexure–B; and etc.’ .

This writ petition coming on for Hearing this daifi, th’_e:Cou’iit..’t_uv’

made the following:

QRDER

Sri P.M. Siddamallappa, the”—._VlearnedV’ couintseiif-.fQVr..3the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that”-this.__petit’ioniChas? become
infructuous in view of the passiiigy dated 26.8.2010

by the Assistant Comm»i.sVsion:e.i*– fxto;Ky,’$gC;§'{;i’§)i’fioo9~10,

2. as having become
infructuous. 1vThe iibertyV:iVsV~r_eseryed to the petitioner to challenge
the said order of»the:VAss’i.stVa”nVt Commissioner by way of an
appeayi this ljeput’y’ Commissioner. Further, if the

petVi’tion’er”mai<eVs for stay in the anticipated appeal within

weelgirorn the Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of

p,etitionerls:. I.A. for stay within three days from the date of

': ..'_ViVts._ fi l i n A" "g

33H.

3. In View of the disposa£ of the main matter, nothing

survives fer the consideration of Mis<:.W.10230/'10 for vatjating

the stay. It is dismissed of as having become unnece§sety;~'.j'L:~.' ~

4. No order as to costs.

MD