Disposed

Chennamma v. Commissioner Hassan Urban Development Authority

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2013WP/11118/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Hassan Urban Development Authority to consider the petitioner's representations for an alternative site alternative site within three months. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the claim while disposing of the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations for an alternative site within three months.

Chennamma Vs Commissioner Hassan Urban Development… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11118/2013 (LA-UDA)

¶5

Between:

¶6

Chennamma, W/o Papanna, Aged about 60 years, R/a Dasarakoppalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Tq. & Dist. 573 201. …. Petitioner.

¶7

(By Sri Narendra Gowda, Adv.)

¶8

And:

¶9

1 Commissioner, Hassan Urban Development Authority, Hassan 573 201.

¶10

2 Commissioner, Hassan City Municipal Council, Hassan 573 201.

¶11

¶12

3 Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Hassan Division, Hassan 573 201. …. Respondents.

¶13

(By Sri A. Ravishakar, Adv. for R1 Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, Adv. for R2 Sri R.B. Satyanarayana singh, HCGP for R3)

¶14

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9.7.2012, etc.

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court passed the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that the State

¶20

Government has acquired the land for the benefit of the first respondent-authority for the formation of a ring road. Therefore,

¶21

the petitioner is entitled for allotment of an alternative site in lieu

¶22

of the acquisition of her land. Therefore, she has filed

¶23

representations as per Annexures ‘A’ to ‘A2’ all dated 9.7.2012

¶24

¶25

seeking allotment of an alternative site. The first respondent has not considered the representations so far. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the aforesaid representations within a time frame.

¶26

It is clear that petitioner has filed representations as per Annexures ‘A’ to ‘A2’ seeking allotment of an alternative site. There is no reason why the first respondent should not consider the same at an early date. Therefore, I direct the first respondent to consider the representations at Annexures ‘A’ to ‘A2’ in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is hereby clarified that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the claim of the petitioner one way or the other. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE.

¶28

BMM/-

Chennamma v. Commissioner Hassan Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennamma v. Commissioner Hassan Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thirumala Educational Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sampangappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Ancita Jose Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjeevaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Jagan Sandeep B Vs the State of Karnataka