IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.42459/2017 AND WRIT PETITION No.42460/2017 (BDA) Between:
1. Sri. M.Narayan, S/o Late Manjunatha Achar, Aged 60 years, No.646, R.K.Mutt Slum, Gavipuram Guttahalli Main Road, Bengaluru-560 019.
2. Sri. M.Karunakara, S/o Late Manjunatha Achar, Aged 53 years, No.646, R.K.Mutt Slum, Gavipuram Guttahalli Main Road, Bengaluru-560 019.
(By Sri. R.A.Devanand, Advocate) And The Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, By it’s Commissioner, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 001.
(By Sri. I.G.Gachchinamath, Advocate) ... Petitioners ... Respondent These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent to act upon the representations submitted by both the petitioners on 13.11.2009 at Annexure-B and to take steps for execution of lease cum sale deed in respect of sites 646, 646/1, situated at R.K.Slum, Gavipuram, Guttahalli Extension, Bengaluru-19 in favour of petitioners, expeditiously.
These Petitions are coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioners is non- consideration of the representation dated 13.11.2009, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B, in terms of the Informal Note dated 01.04.2014 at Annexure-K for the grant of site: petitioners have also produced a copy of the reminder dated 31.07.2015 specifically stating that they have already made the remittance of a sum of Rs.3,921/- for paper publication and that the challan thereof should be made a part of the BDA record.
2. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA initially opposed the claim for the relief as scripted in the prayer column of the petitions.
3. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that his prayer may be read as one for an “order to pass the order” on the representation for the allotment of site, to which proposal the learned Panel Counsel for the BDA in all fairness agrees. Thus, apparently the stand of both the sides appears to be fair and reasonable.
4. In the above circumstance, these writ petitions succeed in part; a writ of mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to consider petitioners’ representation dated 13.11.2009 at Annexure-B, keeping in view the contents of the aforesaid Informal Note and in accordance with law, within three months, and further to inform the petitioners the result of such consideration, forthwith.
It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any information or documents from the petitioners as are required for due consideration of their claim in the subject representation; however, no delay shall be brooked in the guise of such solicitation.
NR/-
Sd/- JUDGE