Allowed

Vijay Kumar S/O Vanechand Bafna v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2021WP/76494/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Belgaum Urban Development Authority, to consider the petitioner's representation and act on a resolution dated 19.11.2010 regarding site allotment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to consider the petitioner's representation and act on the resolution dated 19.11.2010 within three months.

Vijay Kumar S/O Vanechand Bafna Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.76494/2013 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR S/O VANECHAND BAFNA, AGE: 46,OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.RAVIVAR PETH, GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONER

¶9

(SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELGAUM.

¶12

THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE, STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY. ..RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SHRI.M.A.HULYAL, ADV. FOR R1, SHRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 TO ALLOT PLOT NO.51 OUT OF 56 KANGRALI KH BELGAUM AFTER THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF Rs.5,57,920 WITH INTEREST IF ANY.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Shri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent No.2.

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶20

“a writ of mandamus be issued and thereby direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to allot plot No.51 out of 56 Kangrali KH Belgaum after the receipt of amount of Rs.5,57,920/- with interest if any in the interest of justice.”

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made an application to respondent No.1 for allotment of a site and had made payment of certain amounts and the balance is to be paid upon receipt of the allotment letter. Nothing was done in furtherance of the said application. The

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

petitioner had submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent and a Resolution had been passed by the 1^st respondent on 19.11.2010 to consider the case of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner contends that despite the said resolution, no action has been taken.

¶24

The above said facts are borne out from the records. In view thereof, a Mandamus is issued to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner as also to treat the above petition as a representation and act on the resolution dated 19.11.2010 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶25

Respondent No.1 will act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If respondent No.1 has any doubt about the order, he/she may verify the contents of the order from the website of

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

this Court and/or from the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶28

[Sd/-] JUDGE

¶29

Jm/-

Vijay Kumar S/O Vanechand Bafna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar S/O Vanechand Bafna v. the Commissioner

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. S.M. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Govind Lakshmesh Kamat Vs the Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc

Smt.Mallavva D/O Nagappa Bharnatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesh S/O Raju Rudrapati Vs the State of Karnataka

Kadirsab S/O. Babasab Jamadar Vs Hameed S/O. Babasab Jamadar

Parashuram S/O Ramappa Bisanal Vs the State of Karnataka