IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.42469 OF 2015 (GM-RES) Between Ms. Rajamma, Aged about 49 years, D/o Late Madashetty, No.MIG-187, 2nd Main, E and F Block, Ramakrishna nagar, Mysuru – 570022.
(By Sri T.S. Amar Kumar, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Housing Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 01.
2. Karnataka Housing Board, Represented by its Commissioner, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
…Petitioner …Respondents (Sri. R.B. Satyanarayana Singh, AGA for Respondent No.1; Sri. H.M. Manjunath, Adv. for Respondent No.2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.07.2015 at Annexure-A and direct the respondent No.2 to forthwith put the petitioner in possession of house allotted to her and execute deed of conveyance in her favour.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, this day the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.07.2015 at Annexure-A to the petition seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to forthwith put the petitioner in possession of the house allotted to her and execute the Deed of Conveyance in her favour.
2. The respondents have filed the statement of objections opposing the contention put forth in the petition. The same need not be adverted to inasmuch as the very same issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.35125-126/2015 and connected petitions. This Court through order dated 05.12.2016 has declined to grant the relief which had been sought by the petitioners therein. However, this Court had given option to the petitioner to take their chance in the matter of allotment of houses either based on the seniority list or on the drawal of lots. With regard to the amount deposited by the petitioners also, the option had been provided to keep in deposit. The issue in the instant petition is therefore squarely covered by the said decision and as such, the instant petition is also to be disposed of in terms thereof.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision taken by this Court earlier, respondent No.2 has issued communication dated 17.02.2017 calling upon the petitioner to exercise the option in terms thereof. However, the petitioner being aggrieved by the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge in the said connected petitions is intending to assail the same while challenging the order passed herein by adopting the reasons indicated therein. In that view, exercising the option in the nature as sought would not be justified at this stage. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed not to precipitate the matter any further. The petitioner may avail the legal remedies in accordance with law and thereafter approach the respondents.
Subject to the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DL