IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 11857 OF 2018 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI. M.N.SUNDARESHAN S/O LATE M G NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS # 112, 3RD MAIN ROAD SECOND CROSS, CHIKKALASNADRA BENGALOORU 560061 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M C VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BY ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALOORU 560001 2. BENGALOORU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALOORU 560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER BENGALOORU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALOORU 560020 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. C R GOPALA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2&3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOTMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE SITE BEARING NO.13 OF KORAMANGALA , FIRST BLOCK, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 40 FEET NORTH TO SOUTH 60 FEET IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-Q, R, S, T INSTEAD OF RESIDENTIAL CONVERTED SITE NO.106, FORMED IN SY NO.12/5 AND 14/6 OF TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts and the learned Panel Counsel for the respondent-BDA does not dispute that the subject matter of this writ petition is akin to the matter in cognate W.P.No.14081/2017 (LA-BDA) disposed off by a Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 10.01.2018, W.P. No.53834/2013 (LA-BDA) disposed off by another Bench vide judgment dated 11.06.2014 and W.P. No.8710/2016 (LA-BDA) disposed off by yet another Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 22.04.2016.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner banking upon the aforesaid judgments, presses into service the principle of parity seeking a relief in terms of the said judgment. He also draws the attention of the Court to the representations dated 09.09.2014 and 14.02.2018 at Annexures H and K which remained unconsidered. In response, the respondent – BDA submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed for consideration of the representations subject to the petitioner also furnishing the necessary information or documents, there would be no difficulty for accomplishing the task.
3. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 09.09.2014 and 14.02.2018 at Annexures H and K in accordance with law, within a period of three months and further, to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration forthwith.
It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any further information or any relevant documents required for due consideration of the said representations subject to the rider that no delay would be brooked in that guise.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv