IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.24001/2018 & WRIT PETITION NOS.40636-40637/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN 1. Dr. Naveen S.L S/o Late. Sri. Lakshman Rao S.T, Aged about 45 years, R/at: No. 34, 2nd Floor, 1st A Main, Shivanagara, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.
2. Dr. Jayasheela T.V W/o Dr. Naveen S.L, Aged about 38 years, R/at No.32, 2nd floor, 1st A Main, Shivanagara, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.
3. Sri S. Nagarajan S/o Late S.T. Srinivasan, Aged about 55 years, R/at No.118/1, 6th Cross, Begur Road, Bengaluru – 560068.
... Petitioners (By Sri Y.D.Shivashankara, Advocate) AND The Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority, P. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapartk West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
(By Sri K.Krishna, Advocate) …Respondent These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners dated 14.11.2017 and 29.11.2017 as per Annexure-G and H respectively for providing alternative site of equal dimension in lieu of site bearing No.833 measuring 19x12 mtrs situated at 4th ‘T’ Block for the further extension of BSK 6th stage as per allotment letter dated 07.02.2004 as per Annexure-A.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner No.3 happens to be the allottee of subject site; petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the vendees of the petitioner No.3.
2. The short in grievance of these petitioners is that the subject site is clogged in a Court litigation which would take its own time to have its terminal point and that these petitioners being mortals cannot await the termination of the litigation independently and therefore, they had made a representations dated 14.11.2017 & 29.11.2017 at Annexure- G and Annexure-H, requesting the respondent-BDA to allot some other site where they can build a residential house. The petitioners complain that these representations have remained unconsidered since about a year or so and therefore, the respondent-BDA should be mandamussed to consider the same.
3. Sri K. Krishna, learned Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for the respondent-BDA, though initially opposed these writ petitions, now submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for consideration of the representations in accordance with law, there would be no difficulty for accomplishing the task provided that the petitioners also co-operate by furnishing the necessary documents or particulars as are required for such consideration. The prayer of the petitioners is obviously innocuous.
4. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to consider petitioners’ representations dated 14.11.2017 and 29.11.2017 at Annexure-G and H respectively in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months and further, to inform them individually of the result of such consideration forthwith.
5. It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioners as are required for due consideration of the subject representations; however, no delay would be brooked in the guise of any such information being sought for.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS