IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.3545 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) & WRIT PETITION NOs.4211-4212 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. Sri Venkatesh Aged 60 years 2. Sri Lingaraju Aged about 58 years 3. Krishnamurthy aged about 55 years All are sons of Gali Hanumaiah R/at Varahasandra Grama Kengeri Hobli Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 060 ... Petitioners (By Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka Urban Development Department Vikasa Soudha Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560 001 Rep. by its Prl. Secretary 2. Bengaluru Development Authority T.Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bengaluru – 560 020 Rep. by its Commissioner 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bengaluru Development Authority T.Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bengaluru – 560 020 ...Respondents (By Sri Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1; Sri K.Krishna, Advocate for R2 and R3) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 14.12.2018 produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition and direct the BDA to grant developed sites measuring 11979 Sq.Ft. for per Acre of land of the petitioner as has been allotted in favour of one Smt. Mallamma as per Annexure-E and E1 to the writ petition.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The grievance of the petitioners/land owners is against non consideration of their representation dated 14.12.2018 at Annexure-F, wherein they have sought for the grant of 11979 Sq.Ft. of developed land per Acre pursuant to the policy decision of the respondent-BDA dated 16.08.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, on par with the grants made in favour of one Smt. Mallamma, who is similarly circumstanced land loosers.
2. On request, learned HCGP Sri Dildar Shiralli, and the learned Senior Panel Counsel Sri K.Krishna, having accepted notice respectively for the first and second & third respondents, submit that, there would be no much difficulty for the consideration of the representation in question provided that the petitioners co-operate by furnishing necessary information and documents as may be solicited by the answering respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the purpose would be served if there is a direction to the answering respondents to consider the representation on merits, notwithstanding the prayers made in the writ petition, second prayer made in the writ petition. The stand of the petitioners and the respondents is fair.
4. In the above circumstances, these Writ petitions succeeds in part. A Writ of mandamus issues directing the second respondent-BDA to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 14.12.2018 at Annexure-F to the writ petition in terms of BDA’s policy decision dated 16.08.2018, a copy whereof at Annexure-E on merits within a period of three months in accordance with law and further to make known the result of such consideration to the petitioners, forthwith.
5. It is open for the answering respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of petitioners as and when required for due consideration of the said representation, subject to the rider that in that guise delay shall not be brooked.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Kmv