Allowed

Smt Chythra v. the Karnataka Housing Board

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2021WP/1249/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution demanded the Karnataka Housing Board to consider a representation for an alternate site after the original land was acquired. The court directed the Board to adhere to the undertaking in the respondent's affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Board to allot an alternate site within four months of receiving a copy of the order.

Smt Chythra Vs the Karnataka Housing Board — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.1249/2021 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT.CHYTHRA W/O PRADEEP KUMAR D/O GANES AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.34, SANDYADEEPA ASHRAMA MAIN ROAD BWSSB WATER SUPPLY ROAD P.P.LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SATHISH D.J., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶10

AND

¶11

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER CAUVERY BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN – 573 201.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI D.BOREGOWDA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.4.2019 OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-H WITHIN A TIME FRAME.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider her representation dated 03.04.2019, submitted to the respondents – Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) for allotment of an alternate site.

¶20

Heard Sri Sathish D.J., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri D. Boregowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶21

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶22

The petitioner was a applicant which resulted in allotment of a particular site in her favour in the year 2009. After the

¶23

¶24

allotment of a site, the area in which the site was situated came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of Ambedkar Sangha. Therefore, she submitted a representation to the respondents - Board to allot an alternate site by way on 03.04.2019.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Board has filed statement of objections wherein, it is stated that the Board has accepted the representation of the petitioner and the same would be considered for allotment of an alternate site. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit read as follows.

¶26

“3. Some of the site allottees have requested the respondents for conducting the survey at Sathyamangala Extension, the respondent have conducted the survey and demarcate the boundary of the acquired land on verification it is found that inadvertently 8 sites are formed in the land reserved for Ambedkar Sangha and Gundu- thopu. The site allotted in favour of the petitioner is also included in the above said 8 sites.

¶27

¶28

4. It is true that petitioner and another have filed the W.P. No.13563- 564/2014 and these respondents have filed the Statement of objections and this Hon’ble Court has disposed of the said Writ petition on 09/07/2018.

¶29

5. Admittedly the respondents have allotted the sites in- favour of the site looser at Ilawala Kenchalagudu in Mysore. The petitioner have consented for allotment of Site No.714, HIG- I at Hassan Channapatna Layout, if the petitioner consented for the same these respondents will allot the site in favour of the petitioner subject to Karnataka Housing Board allotment rules.

¶30

6. All other averments not specifically denied are hereby traversed as false, baseless and untenable in law.””

¶31

Therefore, in the light of the afore- extracted undertaking averred in the statement of objections filed by the respondents, the writ petition is disposed, with a direction to the Board to adhere to the paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as afore-extracted. The

¶32

¶33

aforesaid exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶34

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and therefore, the same is disposed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

nvj/CT:MJ

Smt Chythra v. the Karnataka Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chythra v. the Karnataka Housing Board

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 Nagaraja Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Kamdhenu Labels Private Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Mrs. K S Latha Vs the Commissioner

Keshava Reddy Vs State by Varthur Police

Mr Nirmal Kumar Jaipuria Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Upendra Kumar Prajapati Vs Smt. Rajani Singh