Disposed

Sri H.A. Ankegowda v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/9673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in allotting an alternative site by the BDA. The Court directly ordered the Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and allot an alternate site within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pass order allotting alternate site within eight weeks; permitted to act on printout of order from Court website.

Sri H.A. Ankegowda Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9673 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9673 OF 2019 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H.A. ANKEGOWDA S/O LATE ANKAIAH RETIRED ACP/DYSP AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NO.102, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 5TH STATE, 1ST PHASE, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-98

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR S S ASSOCIATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/BDA TO ALLOT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.4.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN THIS WRIT PETITION. GRANT AN INTERIM DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT/BDA TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS REGARDING ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN THE WRIT PETITION, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE TOP NOTED WRIT PETITION.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 9673 of 2019

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

a. Directing the respondent /BDA to allot the alternative site to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 26.04.2016, vide Annexure - K in this writ petition, and

¶23

b. Pass any other relief deems fit on the facts and circumstances case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

The petitioner has been allotted a site No.12, measuring 15 x 24 meters at Arkavathi Layout, 8th Block, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent-BDA cancelled the said site on the ground that the respondent was required to redo the allotment and hence, allotted another site No.2184 measuring 15 x 24 meters in the year 2014. However, the same was again cancelled in the year 2015. Hence, the petitioner requested by way of representation dated 26.04.2016 to allot an alternate site. Despite which no action has been taken by the respondent and as such, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 9673 of 2019

¶27

It is a sad case where a person has been allotted a site in the year 2007 which was cancelled, and thereafter, another site allotted to the petitioner in the year 2014 was also cancelled in the year 2015. Until 2022, no action has been taken by the respondent on the application of the petitioner.

¶28

Whenever, an application is filed, it is required for the respondent-BDA to pass necessary orders thereon within a reasonable time which is no done in the present case. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶29

(i) Respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2016 at Annexure-K and pass necessary orders thereon by allotting an alternate site to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

(ii) Respondent to act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for

¶31

¶32

WP No. 9673 of 2019

¶33

certified copy thereof. If respondent has any doubt about the order, respondent may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and/or from the learned panel advocate appearing in the matter. The QR code on this order could also be scanned to view the website of the High Court to verify the order.

¶34

(iii) Learned Counsel for the respondent is permitted to file vakalath.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sri H.A. Ankegowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H.A. Ankegowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Mr K N Surendra Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bairamma Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rangamma Vs State of Karnataka