IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT W.P.NO.8058 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN SMT. R. VANAJA, W/O.SRI.KYATHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT: NO.6 (NEW NO.15), B.MILKMAN STREET, NANJAPPA CIRCLE, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SUNDARESHAN H.C., ADVOCATE) AND THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.C.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 06.08.2009, 24.04.2011, 30.05.2014 AND 10.06.2017 VIDE ANNX-J, K, L & M, TO ACCEPT THE BALANCE SITAL VALUE WITH 21% INTEREST FROM THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SITE ALLOTTED AS PER THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD 18.10.2007 AND 18.11.2010 VIDE ANNX-G & H PURSUANT TO THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 27.05.1998 AS PER ANNX-A, OR IN ALTERNATIVE IF THE SAME SITE IS NOT AVAILABLE, ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner is against the non- consideration of her representation dated 10.08.2001 at Annexure – F wherein, explaining the ill-health and financial difficulty, she has sought for permission to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,175/- towards the allotment of subject site in terms of Circular dated 18.11.2010, a copy whereof is at Annexure – H.
2. Sri.C. Ramakrishna, learned Senior Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for respondents, opposed the Writ Petition stating that the prescription of period for payment of sital value is mandatory and therefore, there is no provision for contention of the lapse by the allottee in this regard. However, keeping in view the Circular dated 18.11.2010, he submits, that there would be no difficulty for consideration of petitioner’s representation, in accordance with law, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this court, for undertaking the said exercise.
3. In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.08.2001 at Annexure – F in terms of Circular dated 18.11.2010 at Annexure – H, and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks, and further to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
4. It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner, as may be required for due consideration of her representation, however, subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked in the guise of such solicitation.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc