B. UMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to non- consideration of his request for allotment of alternate site since his revenue site has been acquired for the formation of Sir.M.Visveswaraya Layout and in the light of observations of Coordinate Bench in JUNJAMMA VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ILR 2005 KAR 608;

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the name of his client has already been enlisted for this benefit and despite that the file is not moving for the reasons best known to the authorities that be. Learned AGA appearing for the 1st respondent on request and Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the other respondents again on request, although initially opposed the Petition tooth & nail, they now graciously agree to instruct their clients to look into the grievance of the Petitioner in the light of the material already produced by the Petitioner at Annexures-E & F, namely: the notice dated NIL and list of names for grant of benefit. This gesture coming from the State & its instrumentalities is really appreciable.

(3.) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy. The entire task as undertaken by Respondents shall be accomplished within a period of three months, all contentions being kept open.