Karnataka High Court
Smt K S Meenakshi vs State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, B M Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO.1274/2018 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K. S. MEENAKSHI
W/O. LATE K. T. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO.501,
1ST A MAIN, M. S. RAMAIAH CITY,
J. P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 076.
2. MR. K. V. VASU
S/O. LATE K. T. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1/9, 12TH MAIN,
VIJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
3. MR. K. V. VENUGOPAL
S/O. LATE K. T. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1, 13TH A CROSS,
WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560 027.
4. SMT. ANNAPURNA PHUTANE
W/O. MANOJ KUMAR PHUTANE,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
2
RESIDING AT NO.539, KALACHANDRA
SECTOR 27, SAMBHAJI CHOK,
PRADHIKARAN NIGDI,
PUNE-411 044.
5. MR. K. V. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O. LATE K. T. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.501,
1ST A MAIN, M. S. RAMAIAH CITY,
J. P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 076.
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5
ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. K. S. MEENAKSHI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SRIHARI A. V., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, M. S. BUILDINGS,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH H. DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1)
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS OF W.P.NO.20626/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 14.12.2017 PASSED IN WP 20626/2016 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR WITH COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Since the order dated 14.08.2018, has not been complied with despite the fact that sufficient time has been given for the learned counsel for the appellant for complying with the office objections, the appeal stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE VP