IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 42976-42978/2016 (LA-BDA) Between:
1. Sri Venkatarasappa Aged about 70 years, S/o Late Ajjappa, R/at Soolikere Village, Soolikere Post, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
2. Sri Srinivas Aged about 42 years, S/o Venkatarasappa R/at Soolikere Village, Soolikere Post, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
3. Sri Krishnappa Aged about 34 years, S/o Venkatarasappa, R/at Soolikere Village, Soolikere Post, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. …Petitioners (By Smt. Vaibhavi, Advocate for M/s DLJ Associates) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Principal Secretary, 2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore- 560 020.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore- 560 020. ... Respondents (By Sri B.J.Eswarappa, Advocate for R1 Sri Narendra Gowda, Advocate for R2 & R3) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 14.07.2016 received by them on 19.07.2016 produced at Annexure-H to the Writ Petition and etc., These writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners, who claim to be the land losers in BDA acquisition are before the Court seeking a direction to the respondent - BDA to allot alternate land site in lieu of compensation, in terms of the Policy Resolution of the BDA and the Government Orders.
2. The respondent - BDA, having appeared after notice through its panel counsel, fairly submits that it would consider the petitioners’ representation dated 14.07.2016, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for doing it and also if petitioners cooperate by furnishing the necessary information and documents. This stand of the respondent - BDA is fair and reasonable.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have filed a Memo seeking leave of the Court, place on record a copy of the judgment dated 28.06.2013 made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cognate Writ Petition No.16919/2013(LA- BDA) in support of their contention. Said reasoning of another Bench of this Court in judgment dated 19.03.2014 in a cognate Writ Petition No.3798/2014 (LA-BDA), has been adopted in that case.
4. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider petitioners’ representation dated 14.07.2016 at Annexure-H, within a period of eight weeks, and further to make known them the result of such consideration, immediately.
It is open to respondents No.2 & 3 to solicit or seek any information/documents from the side of the petitioners as may be required for due consideration of their aforesaid representation, subject to the rider that in that guise, no delay shall not be brooked.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR