Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28402 (KAR)

SRI S MARIAPPA v. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT

WP/7760/2022 · 2025-05-02

R Devdas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17923 WP No. 7760 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 7760 OF 2022 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. MARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SRI. S. RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. SRI. S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. SMT. S. DYAVAMMA, D/O LATE A SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. SRI. S. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SRI. S. VENKATESH, S/O LATE A SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 7. SMT. S. SUJATHA, D/O. LATE A. SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 8. SRI. S. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SERIAL NO.S 1, 2,3,4,5,6 ARE SONS OF LATE. A. SHAMANNA Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17923 WP No. 7760 of 2022 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.74, 18TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL M. V.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION ORDER NO. RDH-35-LTB-59 DTD 28.11.1959 IN RESPECT OF SY NO.223/1 0-34 GUNTAS OF KODIHALLI, BY R-1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for petitioner has filed a memo dated 29.04.2025 seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition while seeking liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the fresh notification issued by the respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17923 WP No. 7760 of 2022 2. Learned council for the respondent - BDA, however, raises an objection regarding the liberty sought to file a fresh writ petition. Learned council submits that the petitioners have not stated which is the fresh notification that has been issued. 3. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. 4. If a fresh notification has been issued subsequent to filing of the writ petition, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise a challenge to the said notification. 5. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1