IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.34402/2018 (LA – BDA) BETWEEN :
SRI K.NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.31/1A, 10TH CROSS, VALAGERAHALLI, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU-560 060 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI H.C.SUNDARESH, ADV.) AND :
1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL BILALMANE, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.11.2017 AND 16.07.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND D RESPECTIVELY, FOR PROVIDING 27 GUNTAS OF ALTERNATIVE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN LIEU OF ILLEGALLY FORMING A ROADS AND SITES IN SY.NO.31/1A, MEASURING 27 GUNTAS OF LAND BELONGS TO PETITIONER, SITUATED AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, AS PER THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BDA WEST DIVISION IN THE NOTE SHEET PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 27.11.2017 and 16.07.2018 as per Annexures ‘B’ and ‘D’ respectively for providing 27 guntas of alternative land in favour of the petitioner in lieu of forming roads and sites in Sy.No.31/1A measuring 27 guntas of land which belongs to the petitioner situated at Valagerahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly objects to the same submitting that the request of the petitioner for alternative land in lieu of the land utilized by the Bangalore Development Authority as per Final Notification dated 11.10.1999 that too without acquiring is not permissible under law. There is inordinate and unexplained delay and the issue is pending before the Division Bench of this Court.
3. In the facts and circumstances, it is incumbent on the statutory authority-respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter. Unnecessarily squatting over the matter would not be a solution to the problem. The grievance of the petitioner has to be addressed in accordance with law by a reasoned order and the same be communicated to the petitioner.
4. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served in directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 27.11.2017 and 16.07.2018 at Annexures ‘B’ and ‘D’ respectively and take a decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: