IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.56463 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
S.Chandrashekar Reddy, S/o.K.Sonnappa, Aged about 47 years, Residing at No.38-A, 1st Main Road, 2nd Cross, RHP Colony, Mahadevpura, Bengaluru-560 048. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M.S.Rajendra Prasad, Sr.Counsel for Sri.Manjunatha.N, Advocate) AND:
1. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), Khanija Bhavana, 4th & 5th Floor, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Represented by its Chief Executive Officer & Executive Member.
2. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, BMTC Complex, 2nd Floor, KH Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru-560 027, Represented by its Managing Director.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), Maharshi Aravinda Bhavana, 1st Floor, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondents (By Sri. B.R.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate for R1 & R3 Sri. Venkatesh.P.Dalwai, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 12.09.2017 as per Annexure-A of the petitioner in accordance with law.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against non-consideration of his representation dated 12.09.2017 at Annexure-A which in substance states that after acquisition of a portion of the adjoining land, the petition land has become useless and therefore, the answering respondent-2nd respondent should acquire that land too.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their panel Counsel who oppose the writ petition, initially. However, after advancing some arguments, now they submit that there would not be much difficulty in considering the petitioner’s representation in a time bound manner if the petitioner also co-operates by furnishing necessary information/documents.
3. The prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, and the stand of the answering respondent No.2 is fair with which the learned Senior Advocate Sri M.S.Rajendra Prasad in equal fairness is broadly in agreement.
4. In the above circumstance, this writ petition succeeds in part; a writ of mandamus issues to the second respondent - BMRCL to consider petitioner’s representation dated 12.9.2017 at Annexure-A in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months, and further to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
5. It is open to the second respondent to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of his representation, subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked in the guise of such soliciting.
6. The application in I.A.1/2018 seeking impleadment does not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter itself.
Sd/- JUDGE rs