Disposed

Smt. Laxmi v. the Mangaluru City Corporation

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/6862/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by an individual seeking direction to provide alternate land, as her property was utilized for road formation without due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider the representation dated 21.09.2019 in light of internal communication dated 30.04.2016 and pass appropriate order within three months.

Smt. Laxmi Vs the Mangaluru City Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6862 OF 2020 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. LAXMI W/O. LATE BASAPPA AGED 78 YEARS RESIDING NEAR KANKANADY RAILWAY STATION ALAPE PADIL POST, MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT – 575 007 ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION LALBAGH ROAD, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER – 575003. … RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE LAND TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.09.2019 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE–A.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to provide alternate land to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 21.09.2019, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.

¶17

Petitioner claims that a portion of the property belonging to her has been utilized by the respondent for formation of road without following the due process of law. Petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent to allot alternate site for having utilized her property for the formation of road without following due process of law. Petitioner’s grievance is that the said representation has not been considered.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law, if some reasonable time is granted.

¶20

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of this petition directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 21.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-A, in light of the internal communication dated 30.04.2016 at Annexure-C 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.

¶21

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

NG* CT:bms

Smt. Laxmi v. the Mangaluru City Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi v. the Mangaluru City Corporation

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.K.Parijatha Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt. M.S. Rajeshwari Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S P M J Constructions Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

K Nirmala Vs The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Saarvajanika Shree Ganeshotsava Samithi (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ravishankar Vs M Krishnappa