B.V.OMPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a practicing lawyer is complaining before the Writ Court against the action of the Respondent-BDA and its officials whereby his two sites bearing Nos.86 & 86A have been designated and treated as CA sites vide order dtd. 20/16/2013 at Annexure-S and Endorsement dtd. 19/5/2009 as approved by the BDA Commissioner on 23/5/2009 at Anexure-S1. Pleadings of both the sides are bulky but that bulkiness was not needed in the facts of the case since matter lies in a narrow compass. Be that as it may.

(2.) After service of notice, the Respondent-BDA and its officials having entered appearance through their Senior Panel Counsel who resist the writ petition by filing the Statement of Objections on 27/11/2014 and by vehemently contending that the subject sites are CA sites and they were so designated in the original approved plan of the private layout, given by CITB decades ago and therefore, the respondent-Housing Society could not have conveyed the sites in favour of the petitioner at all. The BDA Panel Counsel contends that everything having done illegally, the said illegality is now set right by the impugned endorsement and therefore, the interference of the Writ Court is not warranted. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. However, the advocate appearing for the Respondent -Housing Society maintains distance from the stand taken by the BDA and supports the case of the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: