AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 368 wordsThe Hon''ble Mr. Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar
Sri. Ashwin Halady, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent.
Heard.
Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to allot alternative site in lieu of the petitioner''s site, which came to be acquired by the respondent to an extent of 30X40'', situated in Sy. No. 46/7, Gidadakonenahalli, Yeehwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for formation Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout The records reveal that the petitioner was the owner of site No. 9, formed in Sy. No. 46/7, situated in Gidadakonenahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, The said property is said to have been acquired by the respondent on 22.9.2002 for formation of Sir M. Vinweswaraiah Layout as per the notice at Annexure-A. However, the petitioner kept quiet till filing of this writ petition.
Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, inasmuch as, the petitioner has acquired the property under General Power of Attorney and not under the sale deed. So also, the petitioner has not registered herself for getting alternative site pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the case of Junjamma and Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and Others, As could be seen from Annexure-E, it is clear that the petitioner has not purchased the property, which is said to have been acquired, but, she has got the property through the General Power of Attorney. Nobody can become owner by virtue of the General Power of Attorney, Thus, prima facie, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. So also, the petitioner ought to have filed the application within prescribed period and In the prescribed form. Same is also said to have not been done.
Be that as it may, it is for the respondent to take decision after considering the petitioner''s representation/legal notice at Annexure-F, dated 9.6.2011, in accordance with law. This order shall not be misunderstood that this Court has given any direction to the respondent in favour of the petitioner However, the representation/legal notice at Annexure-F dated 9.6.2011 will have to be considered in accordance with law and in the light of the aforementioned observations.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.