Disposed

Smt. Mamatajbegaum v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023WP/104281/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition seeking enforcement of a representation for allotment of a commercial site under the Upper Krishna Project, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner for a fresh representation containing relevant particulars and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks before disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit fresh representation with relevant particulars; respondents directed to consider same and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

Smt. Mamatajbegaum Vs the Chief Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12891 WP No. 104281 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104281 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MAMATAJBEGAUM W/O. KHAJAMAINUDDIN KOLHAPUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, KIRANA MARCHANT, SHOP NO.40. R/O. OLD BHAJI MARKET, BAGALKOT-587101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI Y.R. JOGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, B.T.D.A. BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT-587102.

¶14

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶15

THE REHABILITATION OFFICER, B.T.D.A. BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT-587102.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:27.09.2013, AS PER ANNEXURE-F; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO ALLOT A COMMERCIAL SITE B CATEGORY SITE IN COMMERCIAL AREA AT NEW TOWNSHIP NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12891 WP No. 104281 of 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner claims to be affected by the Upper Krishna Project and her properties are said to have been submerged in the said project. Because of the same, according to the petitioner, she is entitled to lease of commercial site in the new township at Navanagar, Bagalkote. As her representations have not been considered by the respondent authorities, the present writ petition is filed.

¶23

Learned Government Advocate for the respondents, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner has not produced all the necessary details. If she were to produce necessary details, the claim of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶24

3. Hence the following:

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12891 WP No. 104281 of 2016

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation to the respondents with all the relevant particulars and the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within twelve weeks thereafter.

¶28

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

gab Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt. Mamatajbegaum v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamatajbegaum v. the Chief Engineer

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

Mr. Vikash Rathi Vs Kalaari Capital Management Ii, Llc

Mr. Mandar Dandekar Vs Kalaari Capital Management Ii, Llc

Mr. Abhinav Shukla Vs Kalaari Capital Management Ii, Llc

The Primary Agriculture Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Yasemeenbanu Vs the Cheif Engineer

Sri. J.S. Bharatesh S/O J.Sheshanagouda Vs Chief Officer