Allowed

Mr K N Surendra Reddy v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/3993/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider pending representations regarding alternative land allotment and acquisition compensation within eight weeks, noting the inaction despite prior recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the respondent to consider representations at Annexures-C to C4 within 8 weeks and pass an order in terms of the prior recommendation.

Mr K N Surendra Reddy Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3993 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3993 OF 2020 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. K N SURENDRA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYAN REDDY K M AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.109, 17TH 'C' MAIN 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560095.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE 560020.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT M R VANAJA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.1.2020 AND ALLOT SITE NO.1891/1 IN HSR LAYOUT SECTION 2 AND SITE NO.304 IN HSR LAYOUT SECTION 4 AS ALTERNATIVE LAND TO THE PETITIONER AS VIDE ANENXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

WP No. 3993 of 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶23

" I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.1.2020 and allot site no.1891/1 in HSR Layout Section 2 and Site No.304 in HSR layout Sector 4 as alternative land to the petitioner as vide AnenxureA.

¶24

II. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide compensation to the petitioner for acquiring an extent of 9000 Sq.Ft of land without any notification and utilizing the same for road and residential purpose

¶25

III. Issue any other writ or order/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case ".

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶27

is the owner of land covered under survey No.56/2 situated at Haralukunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, out of which 9000 sq. ft. of the land is stated to be utilized by the BDA for the formation of a road within the land of the petitioner being acquired. As such, the petitioner submitted various representations to the respondent on 27.08.2014, 03.02.2015,

¶28

¶29

WP No. 3993 of 2020

¶30

09.02.2015, 14.01.2016 and 08.07.2019 seeking a joint survey as also allotment of alternative land in view of land used by the respondent. The recommendation was made as per the decision of the BDA vide its order dated 16.01.2012. In the proceedings of the BDA dated 26.03.2016, a recommendation was made for allotment of alternative land, which was also not acted upon. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶31

Whenever any representation is made by a citizen for allotment, it is required for the BDA to consider and pass necessary orders on the said representation either allotting or refusing allotment within a reasonable period of time. In the present matter the representations were made for the year 2015 onwards, despite the recommendation having been made, no action has been taken.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 3993 of 2020

¶34

4. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion

¶35

that the petition is required to be allowed. Hence, I

¶36

pass the following :-

¶37

:: ORDER ::

¶38

i. Mandamus is issued directing the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexures-C to C4 within a period of 8 weeks from today and pass necessary order in terms of the recommendation above referred.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

NMS

Mr K N Surendra Reddy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K N Surendra Reddy 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

Smt. M. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M N Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H.A. Ankegowda Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bairamma Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rangamma Vs State of Karnataka