IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.31330/2019 (GM - KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI.KUMAR, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. KULAMEBEEMASANDRA, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD [KIADB], NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RP BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E S INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.520, MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 GUNTA SITUATED AT HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.06.2019 UNDER ANNEXURE – E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Somashekharaiah.R.P, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent NO.1.
Sri.H.L.Pradeep, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, office objection is ignored.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 20.06.2019 at Annexures-E.
4. Sri.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that suitable action shall be taken by the Authority on the representation submitted by the petitioner if time is granted.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that suitable action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be taken in accordance with law by Respondent No.2 by a speaking order within 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.