IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.4069 OF 2017 AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.5873 OF 2017 AND 680 OF 2018 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI E. GOVINDA NAIDU SON OF LATE NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1161/G-12, 9TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 050.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. HARANAHALLI LAW PARTNERS LLP) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI THARANATH SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2008 DATED 16.09.2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The plea of the appellant is that he made a representation to the respondent-BDA (Bengaluru Development Authority), dated 06.07.2005 requesting the authority to allot three sites, in view of his lands being acquired. It is the case of the appellant that he is entitled to avail three sites.
2. The learned Single Judge while considering the said petition placed reliance on the earlier order passed in the writ petitions and thereafter dismissed the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA submits that since the earlier writ petition is dismissed, no relief can be granted in the instant petition.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. The plea of the petitioner was only a request to consider the representation dated 06.07.2005. Whether the representation is to be granted favourably or otherwise, is within the jurisdiction of the authority. The authority is necessarily bound to consider the representation and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of the view that rejecting the petition calls for interference.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.329 of 2008 is set- aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent – BDA is directed to consider the representation of the appellant dated 06.07.2005 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-