The companytention of the appellant in the aforementioned writ petition, inter alia, was that the said writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation was in fact filed by the First Respondent at the instance of one S.A. Krishnappa who had been unsuccessful at earlier stages in his attempt to stall the acquisition proceedings.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals.
On the said amount having been deposited by the appellant, a deed of sale was executed in its favour by the authority on or about 29.6.1985.
It was companytended that one Mohd.
In 1988, a public interest litigation was filed by the First Respondent herein, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned alienation was against public policy and, thus, illegal and void having regard to the fact neither any public auction was held therefor number any tender was called for number any public advertisement for sale of the said land was issued.
The appellant was also put in possession thereof.
For grant of allotment of a suitable plot for establishing an industry, an application was filed by it before the said Authority and upon companysideration thereof, a plot admeasuring 1 acre 20 guntas under the Byrasandra Travaekere Madivala BTM was allotted on a companysideration of Rs.1,87,500/ .
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ application by an order dated 29.1.1996 holding that the allotment in favour of the appellant herein by the Authority being a bulk one, the same was companytrary to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act for short the Act .
In the said writ petition the locus of the writ petitioner was also questioned.
A licence for fencing the property was also obtained by the appellant.
Ibrahim had also filed a suit to achieve the same purpose but it was dismissed.
B. SINHA, J INTRODUCTION Validity of a sale deed dated 19.6.1985 executed by the Bangalore Development Authority hereinafter referred to as the Authority in favour of the appellant herein was questioned by the first respondent before the High Court by way of a public interest litigation which has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.
