Quashed

Sri. K C Chidananda v. the Chief Executive Officer and

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2021WP/5314/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Bengaluru granted the writ petition filed for allotment of land. It directed the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to consider the petitioner's representation and reminder within four weeks, penalizing officials with daily damages for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider representation and reminder within four weeks; Rs. 5,000 per day penalty for delay.

Sri. K C Chidananda Vs the Chief Executive Officer and — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.5314 OF 2020(GM-KIADB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. K C CHIDANANDA, S/O K B CHIKKABETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 589, 1^ST CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, 3^RD PHASE, 3^RD DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 085.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/7, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, R V BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

… RESPONDENT

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 7.8.2012 AD 1.2.2020 COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURED AND E RESPECTIVELY AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME ACCORDANCE WITH LAW

¶12

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to nonconsideration of his representation dated 07.08.2012 and the reminder dated 01.02.2020 copies whereof are at Annexures D & E respectively wherein he has sought for allotment of certain land; learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client has already paid a sum of Rs.Twelve Lakh by the demand draft dated 22.09.2011 and that more than a decade having lapsed since then not even a leaf has been turned.

¶16

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent having initially opposed the writ petition, now fairly submits that his client would consider the subject representation of the petitioner & the reminder and inform the result of such consideration to him within an outer limit of four weeks.

¶17

This Court is not happy with the tardy conduct of business at the hands of the statutory authority like the respondent especially when more than a decade ago the petitioner had admittedly paid a huge sum of Rs. Twelve Lakh for the allotment of a site; be that as it may.

¶18

¶19

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed directing the respondent to consider petitioner’s subject representation & the reminder and inform him of the result of such consideration within an outer limit of four weeks, all contentions having been kept open.

¶20

If consideration does not takes place within the prescribed period, respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per day for the delay brooked and that sthe same may be recovered from the erring officials.

¶21

Now, no costs.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE

¶23

Bsv

Sri. K C Chidananda v. the Chief Executive Officer and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K C Chidananda v. the Chief Executive Officer and

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

Mrs Ratana Narula Vs Commissioner of Customs

Mrs Rajpal Kaur Vs Commissioner of Customs

Shahul Pasha Vs Authorised Officer

M/S Lincoln Helios (India) Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddhant Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sujatha Vs State of Karnataka