Court disposed of writ petitions filed to quash notifications and a reconveyance deed regarding site allotment, noting the impugned order was withdrawn and the matter was rendered infructuous.
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 03rd DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.21412 OF 2013 AND
22040 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
Sri. J. Konda Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Son of Late Junja Reddy, Residing at C/o. Lohit Nursery and Farm House, Ring Road, Nandini Layout, Bangalore – 560 096.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. O. Shivarama Bhat, Advocate)
AND:
2
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. B.B.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.2.2013 issued by the respondent no.1 vide Annexure-A and Executive Reconveyance Deed to an extent of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 37 and 38 of Yarandahally Village, Jigini Hobli, Anekal Taluk in favour of the petitioner with approach road and other facilities which was reconveyed to the petitioner as per the order dated 19.1.2000 and dated 22.5.2007 vide Annexure-C and D respectively and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
It is placed on record that the impugned order has been
withdrawn. The petitions are thus rendered infructuous. The counsel for the petitioner however would submit that it is now for the respondents to execute a sale deed after having allotted a
3
site in favour of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent would assure the court that it would be done in due course. Recording the submission, the petitions stands disposed of.
Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the site is allotted, it is evident that there is no approach road to that site and representation having been made to the respondents, the respondents have conducted a survey and it transpires that the survey report is awaited. It would be for the respondents to address the same and to provide an approach road. It is also stated that there is an existing road. This is a separate dispute that would have been a separate dispute of an independent petition and in the event that there is no access to the property, it would be open for the petitioner to file another petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
Sri. J. Konda Reddy
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
