The Bangalore Development ... vs Sri Srinivas @ Neerubavi Srinivas
2022 Latest Caselaw 5597 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.875 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)
                          IN
             W.P.No.59743 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BENGALURU - 560020
       REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.     THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
       BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
       BENGALURU-560020.

3.     THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
       BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020.

                                            ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     SRI. SRINIVAS @ NEERUBAVI SRINIVAS
       SON OF LATE NEERUBHAVI MUTTAPPA
                               2



     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     RESIDING AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE
     BEGUR HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560001.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
                             ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.59743/2015 DATED 15.06.2021.


      THIS   W.A.   COMING   ON    FOR   ORDERS,   THIS      DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                             JUDGMENT

Mr.Gowthamdev C.Ullal, learned counsel for the

appellant.

Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appeal has been rendered infructuous on efflux of time.

However, he is permitted to file memo to that effect within

two days. The aforesaid statement is taken on record.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV