IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.43479/2015 (LA – BDA) BETWEEN:
SHRI T.M. AZIZUDDIN S/O T.M. ZAINULABIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC:PENSIONER, NO.160, 6TH MAIN ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, HAMPI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 104 …PETITIONER (BY SRI TAZUDDIN, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560040 2. THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.KARUNAKARAN, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE HIMBARAHA DATED 24.09.2015 AT ANNEXURE-S MAY PLEASED BE QUASHED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement issued by the respondent-BDA at Annexure-S to the writ petition inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexures-L to Q and allot an alternative site of 30’ X 40’ either in Sir M.Visveshwarayya Layout or Arkavathi Layout developed by the respondents.
3. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of property bearing house No.64, Khatha No.19, situated at Doddabasti Village, Ramasandra Dakhale, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring east to west 38 feet and north to south 30 feet. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for developing Sir M.Vishveshwarayya layout; the representations made by the petitioner pursuant to the same, requesting for allotment of alternative site has not been considered.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Tazuddin, appearing for the petitioner submits that the relief of the petitioner requires to be considered in terms of the orders passed by this Court in the case of Junjamma & Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, reported in ILR 2005, KAR 608.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Junjamma’s case supra, subject to the petitioner making an application registering for the allotment of an alternative site as provided under the BDA Rules.
6. Paragraph – 3 of Junjamma’s case reads thus:
“3. Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter the authority shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.”
8. In the circumstances, the petitioner being similarly placed, is entitled to similar relief on parity. Hence, the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority to process the claim of the petitioner, if such an application is made within 90 days from the date of this order, the same shall be considered by the respondents in an expedite manner in any event not later than twelve weeks from the date of the application/claim made.
9. It is open to the Bangalore Development Authority to seek any other information/documents from the claimant/petitioner to substantiate the title/rights of the petitioner to the property in question.
10. It is needless to observe that the Bangalore Development Authority is under an obligation to intimate the consideration of the claim to the petitioner.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, all the pending applications stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.