IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO.63254 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
Balraj S/o late Aralappa Aged about 55 years Residing at No.25/1 BMT No.37, 20th Cross, Kargappa Garden, Smapigramnagara Bangalore – 27.
... PETITIONER (By Smt.Reena R for Sri. Hanumantappa B. Haravi, Advocates) AND:
1. The Commissioner Brihat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike N R Square Bangalore – 9.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer Vasant Nagara Sub-Division BBMP, Bangalore – 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (By Dr. R. Ramachandran, Advocate for R1 & R2) - - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dtd 4.3.2013 vide Annex-E with immediate effect.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court with an extremely limited prayer, namely, that the respondent No.2, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Vasant Nagara Sub-Division, BBMP should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 04.03.2013 and to pass the necessary orders.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the House Property bearing Old No.25, Present No.25/1, having PID No.77-29-25/1, situated in Kargappa Garden, Sampangiramnagara, Bengaluru. According to the petitioner, the said property was bought by his father on 14.10.1974 from one Muniswamy Shetty by a registered sale deed. Subsequent to his father’s death, the property was transferred in the name of the petitioner’s mother, namely, Chandramma. His mother died about four years back. Prior to her death, she had filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S.No.1741/2008. However, the said suit was subsequently dismissed by the Civil Court. After his mother’s death, the petitioner has repeatedly submitted his application to the respondent No.2 for transfer of katha in his name. He has also been depositing the property tax with the respondent No.2. Despite the fact that he has submitted a representation on 04.03.2013, the same is yet to be decided by the respondent No.2. Hence, the limited prayer before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a representation has been submitted, it deserves to be decided by the respondent No.2. Thus, the respondent no.2 is failing in discharging his public duty.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the representation shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the petitioner’s representation, dated 04.03.2013, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition stand disposed of with the above direction.
Prs* SD/- JUDGE