IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.NO.57695 OF 2018 (LA-RES) BETWEEN SMT. ZOHARA SADIQ, W/O K MOHAMMED SADIQ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, “MARSS MENOR”, FLAT NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, 9TH “A” MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560029. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DIRECTOR, BENGALURU METRO RAILWAY CORPORTION, BMTC COMPLEX, “B” BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560027.
2. SMT. MAMTA SHARMA, W/O MURARI SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DELETED AS R/AT FLAT NO.53 PER COURT ORDER NORTH EAST MANSION AT NO.131/31, DATED 08.01.2019 8TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO DEPOSIT THE COMPENSATION BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT BY VIRTUE OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD:12.12.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The short grievance of the Petitioner who claims to be the person interested in the compensation in respect of the land in question by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated 18.01.2011 at Annexure-A, is against the non-consideration of his representation dated 12.12.2018 at Annexure-L by the Respondent – Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., wherein inter alia he has sought for depositing of the compensation amount with the jurisdictional Court. He also states that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for keeping the said representation unconsidered.
2. The learned senior Panel Counsel Sri. K.Krishna on request having accepted notice for Respondent – BMRCL submits that ordinarily, the grievance relating to payment or non-payment of compensation are to be made before the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board concerned and therefore, in the absence of the KIADB as a party to this Writ Petition, it is difficult to accede to the request of the Petitioner. However, he hastens to add that there would be no difficulty for considering Petitioner’s representation stated above in accordance with law, if a reasonable period for such consideration is prescribed by this Court. The stand of the Respondent – BMRCL is fair.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondent – BMRCL to consider Petitioner’s representation dated 12.12.2018 at Annexure-L to the Writ Petition; if the Respondent is not the authority who should consider, then the said representation shall be forwarded to the concerned authority who in law is obliged to consider it. Further, the result of such consideration shall be made known to the Petitioner without brooking any delay.
The time for compliance is three months. No costs.
cbc/SJ Sd/- JUDGE