IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8848/2018 (LA-RES) Between:
Rajanna, S/o.Late Sibaiah, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Yaladaddlu Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk, Tumkuru District. … Petitioner (By Sri.Pavan Kumar.N, Advocate for Sri.L.Srinivasa Babu, Advocate) And:
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Minividhan Soudha, Tumkuru District-572 101.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Development Board, 1st Floor, Canara Bank Building, B.H.Road, Tumakuru City, Tumkur-572 103.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Kanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-01.
(By Sri.E.S.Indiresh, AGA for R1 & R2;
...Respondents Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for R3 & R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner on 25.08.2016 as produced as Annexure-G and to take suitable action in the matter and do justice to the petitioner and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Sri. N. Pavan Kumar learned Counsel for Sri L Srinivasa Babu, for the petitioner.
Sri. E.S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Sri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the representation dated 25.08.2016 at Annexure-G and to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
3. When the petition was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within fixed time limit.
4. In view of the submission made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 25.08.2016 vide Annexure-G submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*