BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VISHWANATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. There is no representation for first and third respondents inspite of service of notice. The second respondent has been served by publishing a notice in the newspaper. A memo has been filed in respect of the substituted service.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel has argued before this Court that the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge setting aside the acquisition proceedings deserves to be set aside, in the light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1415 of 2018 (LA- BDA) in the case of (Sri.L.Ramareddy Vs. The State of Karnataka). Paragraph Nos.28 and 44 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

(3.) This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and we are of the opinion that the controversy stands concluded on account of the judgment delivered in the case of case of Sri.L.Ramareddy (supra). Resultantly, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Sd/-