IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.4653 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDAIAH S/O BORAIAH 70 YEARS R/O BADANAGUPPE VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571313 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI MALLAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH AGE 40 YEARS R/O BADANAGUPPE VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571313 … PETITIONER (BY MR. R C NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR B N MANJULA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-I KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) K R S ROAD MYSORE – 570 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571313 4. THE TAHSILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571313.
(BY MR. E S INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1, R3 & 4, MR. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, DTD:31.10.2009 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Nagprasanna, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Raghavendra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
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 direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation 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 submissions 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 six 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. Till the representation is decided, ad-interim order, if any, granted by a bench of this Court to continue.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS