Dismissed

M Gangadhara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022WP/23654/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, petitioners sought direction to respondent authorities to consider their representations and allot alternative sites. The court directed the authorities to consider the representations and pass an order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider representations and pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

M Gangadhara Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.23654/2022 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . M.GANGADHARA S/O LATE MUNIKALAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.94, KUNTHAGANAHALLI, NERIGA POST, SARAJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 125

¶9

2 . MANI M., S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED 63 YEARS, R/A MUDDAPPA GARDEN, COXTOWN, JEEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 005

¶10

3 . SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 19^TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 023

¶11

4 . SMT.RUDRAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/20, MANTHI BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050

¶12

¶13

5 . SMT B.JAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATA RANGAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.U21/5, 1^ST CROSS, NAGAPPA ROAD, P G HALLI, BENGALURU-560 003

¶14

6 . GULLAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAKALAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.56, MUTTAGATTI VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106

¶15

7 . DAYANANDA S/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 10^TH CROSS, C MAIN ROAD, NEAR GIRIJA CLINIC, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 026

¶16

… PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶20

2 . THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

¶22

3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009

¶23

4 . THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4 SRI H.T.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:03.08.2022 AND 12.08.2022 AND TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDERS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WHICH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANENXURE-B1 TO B3 AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶30

“a. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 03.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 and to pass an appropriate orders within a reasonable time which produced and marked as ANNEXURES-‘B-1’ TO ‘B-3’ .

¶31

b. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent authority to allot alternative sites in view of acquisition of their sites formed in property

¶32

¶33

bearing Sy.No.38 and Sy.No.39 within a reasonable time by considering Hakkupatra issued by the 4^th respondent which is produced and marked as ANNEXURES-‘A-1’ TO ‘A-7’.

¶34

c. To pass such suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 - BDA and perused the material on record.

¶36

It is the grievance of the petitioners that their representations dated 03.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 at AnnexuresB1 to B3 submitted to the respondents - authorities have not been considered so far by the respondents nor any order has been passed on the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is given, the respondents would consider and pass necessary order on the said representations.

¶38

¶39

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶40

rival submissions, the respondents are hereby directed to address the grievances of the petitioners and consider their representations dated 03.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 at AnnexuresB1 to B3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶41

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed

¶42

off.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

PKS

M Gangadhara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Gangadhara 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

V Ramaiah Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Aasim Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer

B Narasappa Vs State of Karnataka

Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Eeramma Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Mohan Raju Vs Bangalore Development Authority