IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9Th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.15043 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI RAM KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O. LATE MOTI LAL SINGH F-350, SONESTAA MEADOWS THUBARAHALLI, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066 … PETITIONER (BY SRI H.R.KATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHAUDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 020 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU – 560 020 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL V. BILALMANE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO ALLOT ALTERNATE SITE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PAY A FARE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF SITE NO.55, KHATA NO.1560/55, CARVED OUT OF SURVEY NO.82/3B, THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HERAING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri H.R.Katti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Gopal V. Bilalmane, learned Counsel for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot alternate sites or in the alternative, to pay fare amount of compensation.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the owner of site bearing No.55, Katha No.1560/55, carved out of Survey No.82/3B, Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The aforesaid land was acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority. However, neither compensation has been paid nor any alternative sites has been offered to the petitioner.
It is further submitted that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to respondent No.1 and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in a time bound manner.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in case the petitioner submits a representation, suitable action on such representation shall be taken in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submission made and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today, respondent No.1 shall decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of such representation by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE LB