IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.48484 OF 2018 (LA-KHB) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.NANJUNDAPPA KA S/O LATE KA.PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MADAPATNA JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 560 105. (BY MR.ANANDA K., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUIDLING, AMBEDKAR BEEDI BENGALURU – 01.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 01.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 01.
(BY MR.E.S.INDIRESH AGA FOR R1 MR.VANAJA ADV. FOR R2 & R3) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.11.2011 AND 13.08.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.103, MEASRING 1-17 ACRES OF HINNAKI, ANEKAL TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-D & F AND ALSO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT THE 40% OF DEVELOPED LAND IN LIEU OF ACQUSITION OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.103, MEASURING 1-17 ACRES OF HINNAKI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Ananda K., learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
MR.Vanaja, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 nd 3 to consider the representations dated 23.1.2011 and 13.08.2018 at Annexures-D & F submitted by the petitioner.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation submitted by him shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law if not already decided.
4. In view of the submis0sions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within two weeks 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 the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS