IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.51076-51081/2015 (LB-RES) Between:
1. B. M. Ashok S/o. Late Mallegowda Aged about 46 years, R/at Bidarakote, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District.
2. Smt. Radhika W/o. Shivacharana Singh Aged about 52 years, R/at Doddamaregowdahalli, Mysore Taluk, Illavala Hobli, Mysore District.
3. Smt. Vijayamma W/o. Narayanaswamy Aged about 43 years, R/at No.45, Lakshmisagara Layout, Bangalore – 40.
4. Smt. Devika W/o. Late Sardul Singh Aged about 56 years, R/at Doddamaregowdahalli, Mysore Taluk, Illavala Hobli, Mysore District.
5. R. R. Karthik C/o. Malegowda Aged about 29 years, R/at No.113, 1st Main, 2nd Cross, Mahadeshwara Layout, Metagalli Post, Mysore – 16.
6. Smt. Saraswatha W/o. Basavachari Aged about 45 years, R/at No.40, New Manjunatha Extension, Koudenahalli Layout, Bangalore – 16.
(By Sri. Ajit Kalyan, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Housing, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
… Petitioners 2. Mysore Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, J.L.B. Road, Mysore – 560 001. … Respondents (By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R1; Sri T.P. Vivekananda, HCGP for R2) ***** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 to consider the representation at Annexures-G, G1 to G3 and direct the R-2 to allot stray sites which are available with the R-2 as mentioned in Annexure-B, and other Stray sites available with the R-2.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioners have made representations to the 2nd respondent – Authority requesting that they be allotted sites by considering the representations at Annexures – G, G1 to G5.
2. Petitioners had asserted that they are entitled for allotment of sites in terms of allotments to be made under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that petitioners are not eligible for allotment of sites under Rule 6. The said assertion is not controverted. However, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that once there is a notification inviting applications for allotment of sites by the 2nd respondent and if the petitioners apply, the same would be considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed and applicable rules.
Taking note of the undertaking by the 2nd respondent, petitions are disposed off as requiring no further orders.
Sd/- JUDGE VP