IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.32939/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN Sri. Shabbir Shariff S/o late Sri Basheer Shariff, Aged about 41 years, R/o No.8, Harris Road, Benson Town, Bengaluru – 560 046 (By Sri Shanmukhappa, Advocate for Kesvy & Co.,) AND 1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, 4th floor, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001 2. The Bengaluru Development Authority Represented by its Commissioner, Sankey Road, Bengaluru – 560 020 3. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike H.B.R. Layout Sub-Division, Bengaluru – 560 021, Represented by its Assistant Revenue Officer …Petitioner …Respondents (Sri.Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1; Sri.G.M.Anand, Advocate for R2; Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate for R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.2 to issue “No Objection Certificate” to the effect that the schedule land has been acquired or not vide representation dated 15.02.2017 and 10.01.2018 Annexure – E & F; and also direct the 3rd respondent to issue katha in favour of the petitioner in respect of schedule property.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is against the non- consideration of his representation dated 15.02.2017 at Annexure–E wherein he has sought for the grant of No Objection Certificate from the respondent No.2-BDA for entering into transactions in relation of the property in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for non consideration of the representation despite the reminder dated 10.01.2018 at Annexure–F.
3. Learned counsel for the answering respondents having opposed the writ petition initially, agrees to an arrangement wherein liberty is reserved to the said respondent to consider the representations in accordance with law, within prescribed time limit, provided that the petitioner co-operates by furnishing information/documents as are necessary for undertaking the exercise.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent No.2-BDA to consider petitioner’s representations dated 15.02.2017 and 10.01.2018 respectively at Annexure-E and F, within an outer limit of three months and further, to inform the petitioner the result thereof, forthwith.
5. It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit or seek any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for due consideration of the aforesaid representations, subject to the rider that in that guise the delay shall not be brooked.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS