IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAThKA AT BANcJALORE Dated this the 8th Day of June 1998 BEFORE TH HON’ BLE HR. JUbTICE CHNDRSHEKARAIAH WRIT PETITIciN NO.14173/1994 Between: M/S.S.K.N.Charitable Trust (R), “Sreerang&’, I Main Road, Sharavathi East, Shimog P.O. Shimoga District, by its Chairman. ..PETITICNER (By Sri.H.Neeiakanta Rae, AGv.) And: 1, Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Vinobagagar, Shimoga P.O. and District, by its Commissioner. 2, L3 5 saveswara Veerashaiva Samaja Seva Sangha, Gandhibazar, Shimgga. 3, Dr.Ambedkar Grdmadyoga Sahakara Sangaha, B 8 sattikoppa, Shimoga Taluk, Shimoga Dirict. 4, Proudha hala Mukhpadyayara and Padavipoorva College Mukyasthara Sangha, Kasturaba Girls Pre-Uriiversity College Sriimoga. ...RSPONDENTS (By Sri.Tajuddin, dv. for R—1, Sri.B.Rudragowda, Adv, for R2) . . .2 —3— to allot the Civic Amenities site reserved for Hospital nd Samuuaya havana in favour of the 2nd & 3rd zesponcent for the purpose of establishment of an educational institition which is a different purpose altogether. This fact is stated in the very resolution under which the Civic Amenities site has been allotted in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. 2, The iLarned Counsel for the 1st respondent has riot denied this fact in the statement of objec tions filed before this Court. 3. When once a Civic Amenities site has been reserved for a particular purpose, it shall be Ai ik only for that purpose. In the Case on hand, the Civic enities site that has been allotted to the 2nd zepondent is reserved for construction of Hospital and &amudaya Bhaaana, But the 1st respondent has allotted the said site altogether for a different purpose for construction A . . . —4- of an education institution which in my opinion is illegal. 4. The petitioner next contended that the respondent No.4 even though has not made any application seeking for an ilotrnent, the 1st respondent has allotted the site in Alkola feserved for Samudaya Bhavana, In support of this 0 the petitioner has produced a copy of the statement issued by the 1st resondent wherein it is seen that the 4th respondent has not made any application seeking for allotment. The 1st respondent in his statement of objection has stated that the responden 2 3 and 4 have made applications seeking for allotment of Civic Amenities sites in pare 4 of the statement of objection. In support of tnis, tre respondent No.1 has not produced a copy of the application filed b 4th respondent. In the absence of such proof 0 it is not possible to accept the statement . . .5 —5— made by the 1st respondent. Therefore, I proceed to ate that the 1st respondent has allotted the Civic Amenities site in favour of respondent No.4 tLt ‘- wbhcnzt- application seeking for allotment. Therefore, this allotment is also illegal. In the result, I pass the following ordeq writ Petition is allowed. The allotnent of tne Civic emenities site made in fevour of the respondents 2 to 4 are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the Civic Amenities site in accoroance with tne Rules, after due publication. Sd/ JUDGE k HIGft ,Jw sps/—