IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.27278 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
A. SHAMSHUDDIN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SON OF SRI. M.AHMED SHARIF R/AT NO.206, 8TH CROSS, BHAPOOJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040.
(BY SRI. C. M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... PETITIONER 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 021. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 021.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER'S PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN ANY MANNER INDULGING IN DEMARCATING AND SUBDIVIDING THE PETITION SCHEDULE LANDS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PLOTS OR UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, OTHER THAN THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. C. M. Nagabushana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. E.S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for the following reliefs:
“a) issue a writ of prohibition or order/direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner indulging in demarcating and subdividing the petition schedule lands in the residential plots or utilization of the schedule property other than through due process of law.
b) Issue any other relief or relieves and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down in Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagadish Singh and Others AIR 1968 SC 620, it is directed that the respondent shall not interfere with the rights of the petitioner in respect of the schedule property except in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SA Ct:sr