Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri B R Raghuram vs The Commissioner

High Court Of Karnataka|08 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.47598 OF 2018 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN SRI B.R. RAGHURAM, S/O LATE B S RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.356, “RAMA NILAYA”, HMT LAYOUT, ANAND NAGAR, HEBBALA, BENGALURU-560 024.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI RAMANJULU RAJU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE) AND THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPAKANTHA, 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 DATED 08.03.2018 BY PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The short grievance of the Petitioner who claims to be the land loser in the BDA acquisition is against non-
consideration of his representation dated 08.03.2018 at Annexure-A, wherein he claims to be the owner of the property acquired and that after acquisition, the compensation has not been paid to him though this particular property had fallen to his share in a registered Partition Deed dated 27.08.1970.
2. Smt. Pushpakantha, learned Panel Counsel having appeared for the BDA, although initially opposed the Writ Petition, now submits that there will be no difficulty in considering the Petitioner’s representation stated above, in accordance with law, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for doing the said exercise. To this proposal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also fairly agrees.
In view of the same, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondent – BDA to consider Petitioner’s representation dated 08.03.2018 at Annexure-A, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six months and further to inform the Petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
It is needless to mention that, it is open to the Respondent – BDA to solicit any other information or documents from the side of the Petitioner as are required for due consideration of the said representation. However, no delay shall be brooked in the guise of seeking information or documents.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc/SJ
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri B R Raghuram vs The Commissioner

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
08 January, 2019
Judges
  • Krishna S Dixit