SRINIVASA S/O LATE RAMASWAMY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-01, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE-09 AND THE PRESIDENT M/S BANK OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for quashing of the endorsement dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure -P) issued by respondent No. 3 - Society and for allotment of a site free of cost. It is relevant to refer to the aforesaid endorsement which reads as follows: With reference to your letter Dt 29.09.2012 requesting for allotment of site, We write to state that society is not in a position to allot you free site as requested by you in view of the following. 1) Your family members consisting of grand father Sri. L. Muniyappa, your father Ramaswamy along with 21 other members have received agreed compensation for the land (Joint family property) in question way back in 1986 itself, and consented for acquisition. Thence Land Acquisition Officer has passed consent award which was duly approved by State Government. The society has also paid additional compensation amount of Rs. 90,000/ - vide Cheque No. 742615 and 742617 Dt. 17.03.1994 drawn on Canara bank, Seshadripuram, Bangalore -560020. W.P. No. (16293/95/98) filed by Muninagappa and others and subsequently W.A 3810 -12/98 was also dismissed by Divisional bench High court of Karnataka, even the matter went up to Supreme court where the case filed are dismissed.

(2.) ) Society has not promised allotment of free site to any body as for as this notification is concerned as a matter of policy.

(3.) ) As for as 5th case is concerned the land was allotted as exchange to land taken by the society which was not acquired. In view of the above, please treat the matter as closed: (Underlining supplied) 2. I find no legal infirmity in the above endorsement issued by the Society. The petitioner is not able to show his legal right to obtain a free site from respondent No. 3 - Society or a corresponding legal obligation on the Society to allot a site to the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.