IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.5658 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
D. RAMAKRISHNAN HUSBAND OF LATE SMT. MALLIGAA NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.375 6TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE 3RD BLOCK, H.B.R. LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER B.D.A., T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST BENGALURU – 560 020 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE ALTERNATE SITE TO THE PETITIONER DUE TO ACQUISITION OF THEIR SITES BY BDA WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT PROPERTY BEARING NOS.65 AND 66 ASSESSMENT NO.84/2, KATHA NO.1032 SITUATED AT HENNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 50 X 80 FEET, TOTALLY MEASURING 4000 SQ. FT. AND THEREAFTER TO ALLOT THE SAME SITES IN THE NAME OF THIS PETITIONER AS HE IS ABIDING BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BDA AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE – A TO D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner’s wife had purchased the property by way of an absolute sale deed dated 16.07.2001. The lands were acquired by the respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority thereafter. Hence, the instant petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent- Bengaluru Development Authority to grant an alternate site.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court as to what is the source of right to claim an alternate site. Assuming the lands of the petitioner have been acquired, then he may be entitled for compensation. However, he is unable to show as to what right he has to demand an alternate site from the respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority.
3. In these circumstances, I find no ground to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE TL