IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24901/2019 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
K. L. SHIVARAM, S/O N. V. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRIRAMA NILAYA, NO.557 RTO NAGAR, BANGARPET ROAD, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MANIVANNAN.G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, OFFICE-1, NO.14/3, MAHARISHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, I FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. M/S V STONE (APPLE) ACHATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT – 563 131, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.E.S.INDIRESH, AGA. FOR R1 SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO CONSIDER THE BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2015 PASSED BY R-2 AND TO DROP THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT IF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AT ANNX-B; DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO RECONVEY THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PETITINER BY COLLECTING THE NECESSARY CHARGES AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.06.2018 AND 11.06.2018 AT ANNEXURES-J1 AND J2 AND LEGAL NOTICE DATED 06.03.2019 AT ANNEXURE-K1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Manivannan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 05.06.2018 and 11.06.2018 at Annexures-J1 and J2.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 05.06.2018 and 11.06.2018 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexures-J1 and J2 in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Till then, status-quo as it exists today with regard to possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS