IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION Nos.28642-28645 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) Between:
1. Smt. G.S.Lakshmi W/o S.Lingannaiah Aged 46 Years, R/at No.21, Arunodaya, 1st Cross, Dinnur Main Road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
2. Sri. V.Venkateshaiah, S/o Late Venkataiah, Aged 59 Years, R/at Venkateshwara Nilaya, Canal Service Road, 6th Cross, Raja Kempegowda Extension, Channapatna – 562 160 Ramanagara District.
3. Sangappa Gadigi, S/o Sri. Basappa Gadigi, Aged About 46 Years, R/at 1943, 2nd Main, 6th Cross, 4th Floor, Luminous Star, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bengaluru – 560 060.
4. Sri. Andanappa Gadigi, S/o Sri. Basappa Gadagi, Aged About 39 Years, R/at 1943, 2nd Main, 6th Cross, 4th Floor, Luminous Star, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bengaluru – 560 060.
(By Sri. H.Mohan Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Housing & Urban Development, M.S. Building, Bengaluru - 560 001 Rep. by its Principal Secretary 2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru - 560 020.
3. The Addl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
(By Sri. E.S.Indiresh, Advocate) …Petitioners ...Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, direct the R-2 to accept the applications to be filed by the petitioners seeking alternative sites in lieu of the revenue sites as per Annexure-A to A3 which are acquired for the formation of M.Visheswaraya Nagara Layout and etc., These Writ Petitions are coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought for following reliefs:
a) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accept the applications to be filed by the petitioners seeking alternative sites in lieu of the revenue sites as per Annexures A to A3 which are acquired for the formation of M.Vishweswaraya Nagar Layout:
b) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the applications to be filed by petitioners to allot alternative sites in compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court in Junjamma’s case at the prevailing allotment prices during the year 2004 as expeditiously as possible:
c) Pass such other order or orders, as the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.
2. No documents have been produced before this Court to point out that the petitioners have approached the competent authority seeking for alternative sites. In the absence of any document before the appropriate authority under a statutory rule, the petitioners are not entitled for writ of mandamus as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mani Subrat Jain and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 and Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Vs. K. Jotheeswara Pillai reported in (2007) 9 SCC 461, the writ of mandamus could be entertained only legal right read with demand before competent authority.
3. In view of the aforesaid decision, writ petitions are not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event, if the petitioners files an application/ representation in accordance with law, the concerned authority is hereby directed to dispose of the application/representation by passing speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application/representation.
Sd/- JUDGE UN