IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.15404/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN Smt. C. Anusuya W/o. Mallesh, D/o. Chikkanna, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.13, Kallahalli, Near Ulsoor Lake, Bengaluru – 560 042. …Petitioner (By Sri.H.C.Sundareshan, Advocate) AND 1. The Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Krupa West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
2. The Deputy Secretary - 2 Bengaluru Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Krupa West, Bengaluru – 560 020. …Respondents (Sri.K.Krishna, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated 04.04.2014 and 09.01.2017 vide Annx-H & M respectively for execution of sale deed in respect of the site No.630 measuring 25x40, situated at Kumaraswamy Layout allotted in favour of petitioners father late Chidkanna in pursuant to allotment letter dated 08.11.1977 vide Annx-A or in alternative in case if the same site is not available issued direction to the respondent to issue alternative site in favour of the petitioner.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against the non consideration of her representation dated 09.01.2017 at Annexure–M wherein she has sought for execution and registration of the conveyance comprising the property in question. The petitioner complains that though in terms of the endorsement dated 24.03.2015 at Annexure-J, she has furnished all relevant information and copies of documents, still the said representation has remained unconsidered.
2. Sri.K.Krishna on request having accepted the notice although initially resisted the writ petition, now submits that there would not be much difficulty in considering the representation if the petitioner also co-operates, in accordance with law. The prayer of the petitioner apparently is innocuous and there is no reason to deny this limited prayer either.
3. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents-BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.01.2017 at Annexure-M to the writ petition within an outer limit of three months and further, to inform the petitioner the result thereof immediately.
4. It is open to the respondents-BDA to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for due consideration of the aforesaid representation subject to the rider that in that guise the delay shall not be brooked.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS