IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No. 52366 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNAN.S S/O SRI S.SEETHARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO.22, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, NEHRUNAGARA, BENGALURU-560020 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H.T, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. A.D.VIJAYA, 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 16.10.2017 OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner claiming to be a land loser in the acquisition in question, is before this Court for the redressal of a short grievance as to his representation dated 16.10.2017 at Annexure-H remaining unconsidered and allegedly there being no justification for such non-consideration.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-BDA having entered appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel Smt A.D.Vijaya has filed an elaborate statement of Objections para 6 whereof, reads as under:
“6. It is submitted that BDA is considering the representations of the revenue site holders who are requesting for alternate sites as is evident from the fact that Petitioner in Writ petition no:37909/2011by an Order dsdated:09-02-2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court has been allotted an alternate site as per Annexure-“F” produced to the Petition after production and examining the necessary original documents under the Allottment Rules of the BDA 1984 as per the decision of the Board.”
3. Learned Senior Panel counsel for respondent-BDA in fairness submits that although petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay, still if a reasonable period is prescribed for consideration of the representation in question, there would be no much difficulty for accomplishing the task, subject to the petitioner co-operating by furnishing the necessary information and copies of documents.
4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to consider petitioner’s representation dated 16.10.2017 at Annexure-H within an outer limit of four months, in accordance with law and to make known to him the result thereof forthwith.
5. It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for due consideration of his aforesaid representation; however, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.
No costs.
DS/-
Sd/- JUDGE