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.39789/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN Lakshmamma W/o.Nanjundappa, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.312, Senior Post Office, P.S.Road, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru – 560 036 Now also at No.217/2, Behind Srianjinaya Temple, Bhangade Ramaiah Layout, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru – 560 036 (By Sri K.P.Jayasimha, Advocate) AND The Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bengaluru – 560 020 (Sri.K.Krishna, Advocate) …Petitioner …Respondent This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 03.01.2001, it is submitted by the petitioner before the respondent. The last of which being Annexure-G for the purpose of relies/allot the alternative site No.694 at BSK 5th Stage Sy.No.9, 10 & 11 of Vaddarapalya, Bengaluru, dimension 20 x 30 feet or any other alternative site.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner, a member of the Schedule Caste having been allotted a BDA site under the special category could not make payment of the sital price within the prescribed period. She is before this Court complaining that her representation dated 03.01.2001 has been left unconsidered for about a little less than two decades and that there is no justification whatsoever for the same.
2. Sri.K.Krishna, learned Panel Counsel for the respondent–BDA having accepted the notice on request submit that the writ petition is belated and at this length of time it is difficult to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of an alternate site; however, he graciously submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court, there would be no difficulty for consideration of the representation in accordance with law. The prayer of the petitioner apparently is innocuous no prejudice will be caused to the respondent-BDA if the representation is considered.
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to consider petitioner’s representation dated 03.01.2001 at Annexure-G in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months and further, to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration forthwith.
4. It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for due consideration of the subject representation; however, no delay would be brooked in the guise of any such information being sought for.
All contentions are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS