IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.8010/2018 (BDA) AND WRIT PETITION NOS.9043-9045/2018 BETWEEN 1. Smt. B. N. Ramadevi D/o B. Narayana Rao Aged about 60 years R/at No.575, 16th Cross 6th Phase, J.P. Nagara Bangalore – 560 078.
2. Sri. G. Nagaraj S/o Late Govindaramaiah Aged about 66 years R/at No.129, 3rd Cross 5th Block, BSK 3rd Phase Bhuvaneshwari Nagara Bangalore – 560 085.
3. Sri. K. Ranganath Rao S/o Late K. Srinivasaiaha Aged about 73 years Old No.35, New No.6 4th Cross, 5th Main Chamrajpete Bangalore – 560 018.
4. Dr. Sanappa S/o late Dasappa Aged about 70 years R/at No.2695, 4th Cross 18th Main, HAL 2nd Phase Bangalore – 560 008 (senior citizen benefit not claimed in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 4) (By Sri. Umesh B. N., Advocate) AND 1. The Bangalore Development Authority T. Chowdaiah Road Kumarapark East Bangalore – 560 020. Rep. by its Commissioner.
2. The Executive Engineer West Division The Bangalore Development Authority Vijayanagara Bangalore – 560040.
... Petitioners 3. The Gavipura Extention House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
No.50, 3rd Cross, Gavipuram Extention Bangalore – 560 019.
Rep. by its Secretary …. Respondents (By Sri. Keshav R Agnihotri, Adv. for R1 & R2; Sri. K. Ananda, Adv. for R3) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 22.06.2017 and directing them to release the sites as requested vide at Annexure-A and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioners who claim to be the allottees of the sites by the respondent No.3, is as to the non-consideration of their representation dated 22.06.2017 at Annexure-A wherein they have sought for the release of said sites so that they can have the khatha transferred to their names which is essential for undertaking any development work.
2. Learned Panel counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 having opposed the writ petition for some time, now fairly submits that there would be no much difficulty for the consideration of petitioners representation in accordance with law, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for doing the same and also the petitioners cooperate by furnishing documents/information as are required for due consideration of the same. This stand of the respondents is fair & reasonable.
3. In view of the above, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider petitioners’ representation dated 22.06.2017 at Annexure-A within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law, and further to inform each of the petitioners individually the result of such consideration.
It is open to the said respondents to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioners as may be required for due consideration of the aforesaid representation, subject to the rider that in that guise, the delay shall not be brooked.
Costs made easy.
Learned counsel for respondent-BDA is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE SN