IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.23440 OF 2018 & WRIT PETITION NOS.24476-24478 OF 2018(GM-PP) Between:
Smt. Sudha Shivaramegowda W/o Sri. L.R. Shivaramegowda, Aged about 52 years, R/at 42, ‘Sudha Mansion’, 7th Main Road, 1st Cross, Banagiri Hills, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 085.
And:
… Petitioner 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560001.
2. The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070.
3. Secretary and Competent Authority Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park, Bengaluru – 560 020.
4. Superintendent of Police Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF), Bangalore Development Authority, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park, Bengaluru – 560 020.
…Respondents (By 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 second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner more particularly as in Annexure-P and to issue khata in the name of the petitioner in respect of the marginal allotted to the petitioner and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri.Narendra Gowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.1.
2. Records perused. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) dated 12.06.2017.
3. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 pointed out that the aforesaid order is appealable under Section 10 of the Act.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 10 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal, if so preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-