Allowed

Sri. M S Muralidharan v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2022WP/7052/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at the Lok Adalat allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing respondent authorities to consider representations regarding shop durast without an objection from the authorities and within a specific timeframe.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authorities directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 23.11.2018 and 20.12.2018 regarding durast and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Sri. M S Muralidharan Vs the Commissioner Bruhath… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶7

¶8

SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, MEMBER

¶9

W.P. No. 7052/2020 (LB-BMP) (Lok Adalat No. 209/2022)

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Sri. M.S. Muralidharan S/o Sri. M.S. Mani, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.22, NM Lane, Mill Road, Cottonpet Cross, Bengaluru-560 053. Also at : Shop No.132, SKR Market, Upper Basement, Bengaluru. … PETITIONER

¶12

(By Sri. S. Subrahmanya & Sri. S. Shivashankara, Advocates)

¶13

AND

¶14

The Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bengaluru– 560 002.

¶15

Assistant Revenue Officer, Office of the Assistant Revenue Officer,

¶16

¶17

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Market (West), SKR Market, 1^st Floor, Bengaluru-560 002.

¶18

Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, K.R. Market Circle, NR Square, Bengaluru – 560 002. RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri. T.M. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for R-1 to R-3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURES ‘E’ AND ‘F’ RESPECTIVELY WITHIN THE TIME FRAME FIXED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED:

¶22

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ

¶24

of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations

¶25

of the petitioner vide Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 23.11.2018 and 20.12.2018 respectively for Durast of upper basement at Shop No.132.

¶26

Though the matter is of the year 2020 the respondents have not filed any objections. It is well settled that the authorities concerned before doing durast have to survey the shop and to consider the

¶27

¶28

representation of the concerned person within a reasonable time. The same has not been done by the Authorities concerned. Therefore, there

¶29

is no impediment for this Authority to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶30

In view of the above, we pass the following :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Writ Petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued

¶33

directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner as per Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 23.11.2018 and 20.12.2018 respectively, if not already considered, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without giving room for further proceedings.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

MEMBER

Rbv

Sri. M S Muralidharan v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M S Muralidharan v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Aruna Sunderlal Vs the Commissioner

Sri a Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula Vs Bhruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

B L Boregowda Vs the Chairman

Smt. Savithramma Vs the Commissioner

Ms. Lahari Chinnappa Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike