IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.7908/2019 (BDA) Between:
Smt. Sreelakshmi B.A. D/o B.S. Anantharam, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.22A, 7th A Main, 1st A Cross, Sarvabaumanagara, Chikkalasandra, Bengaluru – 560 061. …Petitioner (By Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, Adv.,) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Department of Housing and Urban Development, M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
Rep. by its Principal Secretary 2. The Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. ...Respondents (By Sri. B.J. Eshwarappa, AGA for R1; Sri. K. Krishna, Adv., for R2 & R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-2 to allot an alternative site as it was promised by the R-2 and in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court in Junjamma’s case at the prevailing allotment prices during the year 2004 as expeditiously as possible by considering application as per Annexure-C.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to allot an alternative site, as promised by the respondent No.2, and in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court in Junjamma’s case at the prevailing allotment prices during the year 2004, as expeditiously as possible, by considering the application submitted by the petitioner at Annexure ‘C’ to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of a revenue site measuring 40’ x 60’ which was acquired by the respondents for the formation of Sir. M. Visveswarayanagar residential layout. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the request of the petitioner to allot an alternative site in lieu of the revenue site acquired, has not been acted upon despite several requests made.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents – BDA submits, the respondents – BDA would consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Junjamma & Ors Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, reported in ILR 2005, KAR 608.
4. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents 2 and 3 – BDA to consider the claim/representation of the petitioner, in terms of the judgment in Junjamma’s case, supra, in an expeditious manner, and in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
5. It is open to the Bangalore Development Authority to seek any other information/documents from the claimant/petitioner to substantiate the title/rights of the petitioner to the property in question.
6. It is needless to observe that the Bangalore Development Authority is under an obligation to intimate the consideration of the claim to the petitioner.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE mgn/-