IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.23709 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
Narse Gowda, Since deceased by his Legal Representative and son:
M.N.Chandre Gowda, Aged about 47 years, Residing at: no.655/2, 2nd Cross, HMT Layout, RT Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 032. ... Petitioner (By Sri. H.P.Mudlappa, Advocate) and:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary to Govt.
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, M.S.Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-560 020.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-560 020.
4. Late Dr. M.C.Modi previous Eye Hospital, Represented by The Trust: its Administrator, Bengaluru – 560 079. ... Respondents (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Sachin B.S., Advocate for R2 & R3; Sri. R.B.Sadashivappa, Advocate for R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS FROM BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-20, IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION CASE NO.1 OF 1967-68 PERTAINING TO SY.NO.153/1 LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES 19.5 GUNTAS (SAY 2 ACRE 20 GUNTAS) SITUATED IN KETHAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE FORTHWITH AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against non consideration of his three representations at Annexures-H, M and N-1 to the writ petition in respect of the land in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that respondent-BDA being a statutory authority has to be reasonable and sensitive to the grievance of the citizens like the petitioners and that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for keeping these three representations unconsidered for decade. He further submits that the prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition notwithstanding, he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent-BDA to take a call on the said representations in a time bound manner.
3. The respondents having entered appearance through their Panel Counsel resisted the writ petition initially and thereafter looking to the innocuous nature of the prayer now made in the course of hearing from the side of the petitioner, they submit that there would be no difficulty for considering the representations in question within a reasonable period as prescribed by this Court for doing the same subject to the petitioners co-operating in furnishing the required information or copies of documents. This is a fair stand.
4. In the above circumstances this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider petitioner’s representations dated 20.03.1981 at Annexure-H, 15.11.2005 at Annexure-M and 21.11.2016 at Annexure-M1 respectively within an outer limit of six months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his nominee in accordance with law.
5. It is open to the answering respondents to solicit any information or copies of the documents from the side of the petitioners as are required for due consideration of the above representations in a time bound manner, subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked in the guise of such solicitation.
No costs.
DS/-
Sd/- JUDGE