IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22944/2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT.R.PANKAJAVALLI W/O P.S.RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/AT 4129, HAL II STAGE, 13TH MAIN, BANGALORE-560008 ... PETITIONER [BY SMT.SANDYA JAMADAGNI, ADV.] AND:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU-560020, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT [BY SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DATED 11.04.2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent – BDA in not considering the representation dated 11.04.2016 submitted by her for execution of the absolute registered sale deed relating to the property bearing No.4129 in HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore, measuring East to West 9.4 meters and North to South 12.19 meters, in all measuring 111.45 sq. mtrs.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be an allottee of the aforementioned Site and accordingly, the respondent - BDA had issued Possession Certificate and Conditional Deed of Sale has also been executed before the jurisdictional Sub-registrar vide document No.4402/1992-93 registered on 29.03.1993. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the representation submitted by her for execution of absolute sale deed along with necessary documents has not been considered and she is made to run from pillar to post. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.8268/2008 before the competent Civil Court for permanent injunction against the respondent – BDA and the suit has been decreed in favour of the petitioner on 29.09.2015. Despite the same, the petitioner, aged about 87 years, is fighting for her legitimate rights over the property. Hence, seeks for the relief as sought for.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent – BDA has no objections to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2016 in accordance with law within a time frame.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub- served in directing the respondent – BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2016 at Annexure – E in accordance with law and a decision shall be taken in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR