IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.37612/2017 (GM- RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGARATHNA Y.R WIFE OF LATE RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS SRINIVASA MANJERU BATALU YELLURU POST, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... PETITIONER 2. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.M.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – D AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO HOUSE ALLOTTED TO HER BEARING NO.293 IN MIG TYPE A SITUATED IN SURYANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.1.2016 as at Annexure-“D”. In that regard, the petitioner is seeking that direction be issued to respondent No.2 to execute sale deed in the name of the petitioner in respect of house bearing No.293 MIG Type A situated in Suryanagar, 1st Stage, Bengaluru, which was allotted to the petitioner. In respect of the payment that was required to be made by the petitioner, the petitioner contends to have paid the same though there was some marginal delay in paying the said amount. Since in that regard the respondents have not taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and the transaction has not been concluded in favour of the petitioner by execution of the sale deed, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation dated 25.01.2016 enclosing thereto the documents relied on by the petitioner seeking completion of the transaction. Since no action is taken by the respondent despite such representation being made, the petitioner is before this Court seeking that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to take note of the representation and take action in that regard. The petitioner has also sought to rely on an earlier order dated 6.4.2016 passed in W.P.No.16699/2016 wherein this Court in similar set of circumstances in respect of the petitioner therein had issued directions to the respondents to consider the representations.
2. Having taken note of the orders passed therein and the relief sought for in this petition, all that is necessary to be directed at this juncture is that the respondents shall take note of the representation of the petitioner and take action as per law in that regard. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner is an old one, it is appropriate that the petitioner is also granted liberty of filing a fresh representation enclosing a copy of the earlier representation and also supporting documents, which shall be examined and appropriate action be taken by the respondents.
3. In that view, the respondents shall take action on the representation to be submitted by the petitioner along with a copy of this order in an expeditious manner and such action in any event shall be taken by the second respondent within the outer limit of six weeks from the date on which the representation is submitted. Needless to mention that in the process of consideration, if the second respondent arrives at a conclusion that the sale deed is to be executed in favour of the petitioner, further steps in that regard to consider the execution of the sale deed shall also be taken in an expeditious manner.
4. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.