IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No. 83/2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
Smt. T.K.Shilpashree, D/o S.V.Krishnappa, Aged about 36 years, R/a Thowdanahalli Village, Sarjapura Post, Nandi Hobli, Chikkballapura Taluk & District. …. Petitioner (By Sri. T.A.Karumbaiah, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka Rep. by Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road, Kumara Park (W), Bengaluru-560020.
By its Commissioner.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road, Kumara Park (W), Bengaluru-560020. ... Respondents ( By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1 Sri. K.Krishna, Advocate for R2 & R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of mandamus to issue NOC to the petitioner in respect of the schedule property as to the petitioner’s land has not been notified by the BDA vide preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 (Annexure-F) issued under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act and the final notification dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure-G) issued in so far as the schedule property is concerned under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act as lapsed in terms of Section-24 of the Act 30/2013 entitled under right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that regardless of the prayer made in the Writ Petition, petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider her representation dated 19.11.2014 at Annexure-J, wherein she has sought for a No Objection Certificate from the answering respondent in connection with the claim for conversion of the petition land to non-agricultural purpose.
2. Learned HCGP for the Government and learned panel counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 although initially opposed the Writ Petition on merits, now submit that there would be no difficulty in considering petitioner’s representation if a reasonable period is prescribed therefor and also petitioner co-operates by furnishing necessary information or documents as required for due consideration of the said representation. The stand of the respondents is fair and appreciable.
3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider petitioner’s representation dated 19.11.2014 at Annexure-J within an outer limit of three months, in accordance with law and further to inform the petitioner, the result of such consideration forthwith.
It is open to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to seek or solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as would be required for due consideration of her representation; however, no delay shall be brooked in that guise.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-