IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.42675 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI N VENUGOPALA REDDY @ N GOAPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O P. NARAYANA REDDY, R/AT NO.448, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, DODDANEKKUNDI, BANGALORE-560 037.
(BY MR.VARADARAJAN.M.S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HAL POLICE STATION, … PETITIONER BANGALORE-560 037.
5. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), BY ITS SECRETARY, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
(BY MR. Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4 MR.B.B.PATIL, ADV FOR R-5) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1, 2 & 5 NOT TO ENTER UPON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR/AND INDULGE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAME. DIRECT THE R-3 AND 4 TO ACT ON THE COMPLAINT DTD:3.9.2017 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND EXTEND NECESSARY HELP AND ASSISTANCE TO HIM TO PROTECT HIS PROPERTY AND ALSO FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN RFA NO.1516/2007 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr.B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 not to enter upon the schedule property or/and indulge in illegal activities in the same and directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to act on the complaint dated 03.09.2017 given by the petitioner and extend necessary help and assistance to him to protect his property and also for implementation of the interim order passed in RFA No.1516/2007.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be granted with a liberty to make a representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that in case a representation is made to the competent authority, the same shall be decided by the competent authority by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS