Sri Wajid Pasha S/O Abdul Khuddus vs The Chairman Bangalore Development ... on 11 March, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Wajid Pasha S/O Abdul Khuddus vs The Chairman Bangalore Development ... on 11 March, 2009

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

uuw n

gun: 3 _:" V

%  Adv.)

 vr I\.F|lllV.P\ll-\I\l-l l"'lI|JI'§ LUUKI Ur KARNATAKA          '

m THE HIGH CGURT <3? I{ARNA.'I'AI{A AT    _

DATED THIS THE 11:22 my omamca» -XII   j    

BEFORE

THE HC)N'BLE Mr. AJ:*1*Jk%<::n:.:;;.;,%%%  %

   

WRIT PETFPEQN 2vo.4r;r1§%F:c:>.1é* am

BETWEEN :

SriWaj1'dPaah.a,   '

S/o Abd11IKhuddm3,'--.  .   ' 
Hgedabtmt 51 . .,     " 

N<>.63, Kzishrmppa ~  f

H.S£ddaia.}i 'Rﬁaﬁig' 'fl:    "

Bmlgaiaxia-550    « f ...PE'I"iTIOI'IER

(Sri Ilyas Hmain, A§t§~;;    

Eangaidséi  ﬁtment Authority,
  
...RE SPDEUEKT

A    W.Pi:s filed under Articles 326 and 232?' ofthe

Eiariatitiition of India praying in: quash the final

*  datad 'i'*5*'Febm1£ary 1978 vide: 13s1:111e;xure--H
 "published in Kaxnataka Gazette dated 9.3.3.'978 for
 "-acquiring thc land by the rezspoxidtznt -- EDA, in
  Sy.No.172f BA situated at Byrasandsra Villaga, Begur

V I-Iobli, Bangalore South Taluk and to riar::]£1re the said

nntificatian as null and mid.

This WP coming on for prcliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:



.........-...-....-. :..-.a.-.A-V,.-gun: -ur nnnnnunnn ruurl LUUKI U!' RAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH I

Ex')

ORDE3

Mr.K.K_t-ishna, learnad Qeuns:éI'"é;Cce&p1':3B  

the rmpendent.

2. Fursuant to t11¢*;': ﬁatevczi
19.09.1977

, Sy.Hn.17'2[ 213$ acquired for the purposg if Scheme. maﬁa an Q'?.G1.19'?'8.

The case Land was granted in favour Eé'-f_ﬁon¢ the petit.i«::nar's wander to an of ﬁghe petitioner ciaizns to have fit ta» 8: sale agmsmeznt dated thﬁ11'1' Contention of the petitinner is that tha giétaﬁiiéiﬁon is in violaticnn of principles rzsf jﬁaﬁce, irzasmuch as, no ncrtizzze was issued to tiie aequisiti-an prooecciirxgs.

13. Apparently, the. petitioner is qumtzirzznixag the acquisition proceedings after a lapse of nearly 31 years which is impermissible. It is alarm is be natiem that the petitioner claims us have purchased the pmperty" in the @-

un.4.4.--. -

-luv! ' \'-__I\Vl"IJl\I wr l\rIl(I1.I\ll-|l\l-I l"'ll\3I'I LUUKI Ur KARNATAKA < year 1996. By men, tha acquisition pr<3<:¢ec3gf:§§g3" _ azreaay wmpletezd. indeed whe;;>t11e.*"ae§;j;:i§:i§£nn j proceedings were completed in question of the petitioner Ets3,fj12gV"'-1ibt5i'ietiV " A acquisition procaesedings ﬁvuuld :a1'i.§e, as, his interest in the 5,, w"as from 19.06.1996. In;;¢~,.¢§1, ['j:r:$_ that the subﬁaéinent of the to qumaion the acquis-iti£::V:1' he has any right; that is only in r&p_é«;:.t ¢$f_:§Qﬁ1;§fé::1sation. If any sisxrisicn is tn P(.3QRﬁAPRA.J}'¥A E-IGUSE k;e-Ur:,I3;m;.%[t:c9:'ofPERA11vE socmw vg. Bazmmm KAR 1441.

' heard the learned counsel appaaring for Vjaetitioner, I am at' the. View that no reiicf car: he Petiﬁon stands rejected. --

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court