Dismissed

Smt Chandrakanthi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2016WP/13018/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition filed by a society member seeking an allotment of a site. The court held the petitioner must approach the society, not the BDA, as the society, not the authority, faces the grievance regarding the land release.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected as misconceived and ill-conceived without prejudice to any remedy.

Smt Chandrakanthi Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.13018 OF 2016 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Chandrakanthi, Wife of Sri. V. Karpooram, Aged about 66 years, Residing at No.10/2, Palani Modaliar Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri H.V.Subramanya, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶13

The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, Sankey Road, Kumara Park West,

¶14

¶15

Seshadripuram, Bengaluru – 560 020.

¶16

The Co-operative Department Employees’ Housing Co-operative Society Limited, No.1, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore – 560 001, Represented by its Secretary.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1)

¶19

¶20

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent-BDA to consider the representation dated 6.10.2015 made by the petitioner vide Annexure-A forthwith and to pass suitable orders thereon and etc;

¶21

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

It transpires that the petitioner who is a member of the

¶24

third respondent – Society was to be allotted a site in the land

¶25

which was however handed over to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Therefore, the petitioner was

¶26

¶27

deprived of a site in the said land. It later transpires that the said land was released by the BBMP in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). No allotment of the site has been made so far.

¶28

It is for the petitioner to seek any such allotment through the third respondent, which is not an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, the present petition is misconceived. If at all, it is the third respondent – Society which may be aggrieved by the BDA not releasing the land in its favour. Therefore, the petition is ill-conceived and is rejected without prejudice to any remedy that the petitioner may have against the Society or which the Society may have against the BDA.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Smt Chandrakanthi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chandrakanthi v. the State of Karnataka

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 B M Dinakar Babu Vs the Additional Registrar of Co. Operative

Sri G Venkatasubbarao Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Rudresh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramegowda Vs the State of Karnataka