Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution were dismissed as withdrawn upon receipt of a memo from the stand cited in the judgment seeking withdrawal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.1867-1869 OF 2014 (LA-BDA))
BETWEEN:
Sri. Chikkamuniswamy, Son of Sri. Muthappa, Aged about 56 years, Resident of No.23/62C, Nagavara, H.B.R.Layout, Bangalore – 560 043.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. A. Keshava Bhat, Advocate)
AND:
2
Represented by its Commissioner.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. D.Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri. G.S.Kannur, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 )
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records from the BDA in respect of the schedule sites and on perusal of the same and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo
enclosing an endorsement issued by the Bangalore
Development Authority, seeking to withdraw the petitions.
3
The memo is placed on record and the petitions are
dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
Chikkamuniswamy
State of Karnataka
Bangalore Development Authority
Additional Land Acquisition Officer
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
