IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.52865/2018 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN R. Vasantha Kumari W/o K. Nanjundappa Aged 70 years R/at LIG-32 1st Main, 8th Cross 2nd Stage, Kengeri Satilite Town Bangalore – 560 060. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M. C. Basavaraju, Advocate) AND The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority T. Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore – 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 allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioner for having acquired her site bearing No.55, situated in Sy.29/1, Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as per the guidelines issued by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Junjamma and others V/s BDA and others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608 and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against non- consideration of her representation for allotment of alternate site in the terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Junjamma and others V/s. The Bangalore Development Authority and others ILR 2005, KAR 608.
2. Learned Panel counsel for respondent having accepted notice on request submits that if the petitioner makes an appropriate representation supported by all relevant documents, there would be no difficulty for consideration of petitioner’s claim in accordance with law, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court. He also submits that whatever documents the petitioner has now produced at Annexures-A to G shall also be kept in view, while doing that exercise.
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site in terms of decision of this Court in Junjamma’s case (supra) in accordance with law within a period of three weeks and further to inform the petitioner, the result of such consideration forthwith.
4. It is open to the said respondent -BDA to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as may be required for due consideration of the representation, to be made by him, subject to the rider that in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR