Dismissed

Smt. Manjula v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2021WP/10720/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the non-consideration of their representations for residential site allotment. The Court directed the Karnataka Housing Board to consider their representations and inform the result within three months, with liability for costs if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to consider representations and inform result within three months; liability for costs on delay.

Smt. Manjula Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10720 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. MANJULA, W/O APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO 65, 1^ST CROSS, ONTIKOPPALU, BEHIND KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL, MYSORE - 570 002.

¶9

2 . SRI. KALEGOWDA, S/O LATE KARIBASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO 41, BEML LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGAR, HASSAN - 570 026.

¶10

3 . SMT. K.T. RANGAMMA, W/O A.H. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO 5347, BEHIND P & T QUARTERS, SHANKARAPURAM LAYOUT, HASSAN - 560 004.

¶11

4 . SMT. SAKAMMA, W/O BOGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMARAGOWDANA HALLI, LLAVALA HOBLI, MYSORE - 570 027.

¶12

5 . SRI. B.M. BASAVARAJ, S/O P.M. SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO 27, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, B.T. BED, KUVEMPUNAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶13

¶14

6 . SRI. M.RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO 223, 1^ST 'G' CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶15

7 . SRI. B. RAVI, S/O BEEREGOWDA, C/O Y. MALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.113, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, MAHADESHWARA LAYOUT, METAGALLI POST, MYSORE - 570 016.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

2 . THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA-R1)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-2 DTD.2.5.2019 WHICH ARE HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B TO G AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DTD.10.2.2020 AND 11.2.2020 AND ALLOT THE VACANT HOUSES AVAILABLE WHICH ARE HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-O TO U.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The short grievance of the petitioners is against the

¶28

non-consideration of their representations at Annexures-O to U, wherein they have sought for the grant of sites at the hands of respondent No.2-Karnataka Housing Board.

¶29

Sri. Niranjan Swamy, learned Panel Counsel on request appearing for the respondent No.2-Karnataka Housing board opposes the writ petition contending that the petitioners have to show the such a right to allotment of the site and therefore, no Mandamus can be issued in the absence of right being demonstrated; however, he now fairly submits that he would instruct his client to look into their grievance in a time bound manner and in accordance with law.

¶30

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent No.2 to consider petitioners' subject representations and inform them the result of such consideration within an outer limit of three months, failing which, the Commissioner of the Board may be required to pay heavy costs personally on a Memo being moved by the petitioners in this regard.

¶31

¶32

It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall

¶33

furnish all and whatever information and records that are essential for consideration of their representations, if sought for by the answering respondent; however, in the guise of soliciting such information, delay shall not be brooked.

¶34

All contentions are kept open.

¶35

Costs made easy.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

DS/JY

Smt. Manjula v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula v. 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

All India Union Bank Officer'S Federation Vs Union Bank of India

M.G. Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Qball Max Sports Center Vs State of Karnataka

K T Pushpalatha Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

O. C.Krishnappa Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Represented by

New Horizon Educational and Cultural Trust Vs the Senior Sub Registrar