IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.33033/2019 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT.BHAGYAVATHI W/O LATE D.PRAKASH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT #1323, #32, F CROSS, 26TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT.NAZIMA TASNEEM, ADV.] AND:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT [BY SRI G.A.GOPI, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ALLOWING THE WRIT AS PRAYED WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 01.06.2019 submitted by her at Annexure – A to the writ petition in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner submits that Site No.476, Block VI of Arkavaty Layout, Bangalore, was allotted to her husband vide letter of allotment dated 24.06.2006. Accordingly, the respondent – BDA has executed the lease cum sale agreement in respect of the said site in favour of the petitioner’s husband. The possession certificate and Khata certificate were also issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner in respect of the said subject site.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband died on 10.11.2016 leaving behind the petitioner and his daughter as legal representatives. The petitioner’s daughter has executed registered release deed dated 28.09.2018 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject site. Subsequently, the respondent has issued transfer endorsement in favour of the petitioner on 18.05.2019.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the representation made by her for allotment of alternative site in view of the allotted site No.476, Block VI of Arkavaty layout, Bangalore measuring 9/12 meters is not available, has remained unconsidered.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Rajendra Prasad representing the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the aforesaid grounds urged in the writ petition submitted that the respondent – Authority is bound to execute the absolute sale deed in respect of the allotted site or to allot an alternative site if the same is not available. The repeated requests/representations made by the petitioner has not yielded any positive results.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent – BDA fairly submits that there is no legal impediment for the respondent – Authority to consider the representation dated 01.06.2019 at Annexure – A and take a decision in accordance with law.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent – BDA to consider the representation dated 01.06.2019 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure – A to the writ petition and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR