IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.30547 OF 2018 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
Sri Kunhi Raman Cheruki, S/o. late Sri Velu Thambady Edayil Purayil, Aged about 73 years, Currently residing at Mussafah, P.O.Box, No.9118, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. with permanent address Soumya’s Kushal Nagar, Kanhangad, Kasargod, Kerala. Represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri Ajith Sankar (Not claiming senior citizen benefit) … Petitioner (By Ms. Pavithra. N, Advocate for Sri. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate) AND:
1. The Bengaluru Development Authority, Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560020.
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru Development Authority, Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560020. … Respondents (By Sri. K. Krishna, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents-B.D.A. Authorities to consider the representation vide Annexure-E dated 31.03.2017 and follow strictly the principles laid down in the Bandu Ramaswamy’s case reported in 2010(7) SCC page 129 and pass appropriate orders in dropping from acquisition of Arkavathy Layout in respect of site of petitioner as per schedule and etc.
This 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 owner of the petition site, is against non-consideration of his representation dated 31/03/2017 at Annexure-E, where in he has sought for dropping of the said site from the acquisition process in question.
2. Sri. K. Krishna, learned Standing Panel Counsel for the respondents having accepted notice, opposes the petition saying that the petitioner does not have a right to seek deletion regard being had to the advanced stage of acquisition. Having so submitted, he fairly states that there would be no impediment for consideration of petitioner’s representation if the petitioner too co- operates by furnishing necessary information and documents. The prayer of the petitioner is innocuous and the stand of the respondent – BDA is fair.
3. In view of the above, this petition succeeds in part; a writ of mandamus issues to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation dated 31/03/2017 at Annexure-E, within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law, and further to make known to the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
4. It is open to the respondents to solicit any information and documents from the side of the petitioner as required for due consideration of the said representation subject to the rider that in the solicitation no delay shall be brooked.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ