IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT Writ Petition No.811 /2019 (LA-KIADB) Between:
Jose Sabastian, S/o Devasia Devasia, Advocate, No.109, 1st floor, M.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Petitioner (By Sri. Jose Sabastian – Party-in-Person) And:
1. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., BMTC Complex, K.H.Road, Bangalore.
Having office at No.1, Chinnaswamy Cricket Stadium, Gate – 10, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
By General Manager.
2. Land Acquisition Officer (METRO), Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Maharshi Aravinda Bhavan, 1st Floor, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondents (By Sri. K.Krishna, Advocate for R1;
Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-1 and 2 to consider the representations [1] dated 24.11.2017, 26.9.2018 and 7.12.2018 under the original of Annexure – L, P, and R in seeking to conduct a joint survey by BMRCL Survey along with City Surveyor city survey team -3 K.R. Circle, Bangalore to find out the acquired land of 472 square meters falls in Sy No.64/6 or in Sy No.105 of Madivala Village before awarding compensation.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, Court made the following:-
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner, Party-in-person, is against non consideration of his representations at Annexures-L, P & R in question, wherein he has made a request for conducting a joint survey by the respondents 1 and 2 with the participation of Assistant Director of Land Records and City Survey Settlement, Bengaluru, of the properties in question.
2. Learned panel counsel Sri. K. Krishna and Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, on request, respectively having taken notice for Respondents 1 and 2, submit that there would be not much difficulty for consideration of the petitioner’s representations if he also co-operates by furnishing necessary information and the documents, if any, as may be required for due consideration of the said request, and if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for undertaking the exercise in question.
3. The stand of the official respondents being fair, the innocuous prayer of the petitioner needs to be granted.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds in part; a writ of mandamus issues to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider petitioner’s representations dated 24.11.2017, 26.09.2018 and 7.12.2018 respectively at Annexures-L, P & R, in accordance with law within a period of three months, and further to inform the petitioner as to the result of such consideration forthwith.
5. It is open to the respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the said representations.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-