IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.42394/2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, W/O LATE S.M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, SUBBANNA GARDEN, BEHIND JALBHAVAN, BANNERGHATA ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 076.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATH K.V., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE – 03.
…RESP0NDENTS (BY SRI NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2; SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE – C THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 07.02.1978 ISSUED BY R-1 AND DECLARE THE ACQUISITION AS LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Manjunath K.V., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 12.04.2016 vide Annexure-F.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 12.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law, by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PB