Allowed

Savitha S v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/14210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, directing Urban Local Authority respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding khata registration for 10 flats allotted to her late husband under a joint development agreement within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider the representation dated 30.06.2022 and pass appropriate order within eight weeks.

Savitha S Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14210 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SAVITHA S W/O LATE BABU REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT 39,40,41 MSR LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560068. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.MAHESH.C.M, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N R SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, DODDAKANNALI, BANGALORE-560035. ... RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH FOR R1 AND R2)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO TR-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD.30.6.2022 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

In pursuance of joint development agreement dated 22.04.2015, the husband of the petitioner completed the construction of apartment complex in terms of joint development agreement and 10 flats constructed in the apartment complex were allotted to the share of the husband of petitioner/developer. After death of her husband, the petitioner submitted the representation to the respondent No.2 for registering khata in her favour in respect of 10 flats, which was allotted to the husband of petitioner in terms of joint development agreement dated 22.04.2015.

¶18

The petitioner's grievance is that the said representation is not been considered.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for respondentBBMP upon instruction submitted that representation submitted by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law, if reasonable time is granted.

¶20

¶21

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 30.06.2022 submitted by petitioner at AnnexureA and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within eight weeks

¶22

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

Savitha S v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitha S 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

Suraj Kumar Jain Vs Department of Town and Country Planning

Mr Jaya Moolya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmi Vs the Mangaluru City Corporation

Sri Sharath Shetty Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Ravikiran M Vs State of Karnataka

H Basavarajaiah Vs the Davanagere City Corporation