Disposed

Smt. B.R. Sujatha v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023WP/19676/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition directing the Respondent to examine the Petitioner's grievance regarding execution of a sale deed upon production of specified documents within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ordering Respondent to consider Petitioner's grievance regarding execution of sale deed upon compliance with document requirements within three months.

Smt. B.R. Sujatha Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19676 OF 2014 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. B.R. SUJATHA W/O RADHAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.2878, 2ND B MAIN ROAD, 15A CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 070.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER BANGALORE – 560 020.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent-BDA for the execution & registration of a regular Sale Deed in terms of Lease & Possession Certificate dated 16.08.1986, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A. Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of the Court to the Bank Endorsement i.e., Demand Draft dated 16.05.1988 to the tune of Rs.3,125/-, wherein it is mentioned as initial deposit.

¶20

2. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the

¶21

BDA resists the Petition contending that a Writ of Mandamus has to be preceded by a demand along with all necessary particulars that support the demand, in absence thereof, no Writ can be issued. Having so contended, he now agrees to instruct his client to look into grievance of the Petitioner should she produce a certified copy of the

¶22

¶23

lease along with other evidentiary material; this is appreciable.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶25

and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as there is a copy of Lease & Possession Certificate dated 16.08.1986 and the Demand Draft particulars dated 16.05.1988, respectively at Annexures-A & G. There is also a Photostat copy of front page of the envelope bearing some particulars and that appears to have been generated by office of the BDA itself as per AnnexureE. This apart, Petitioner agrees to obtain & produce the certified copy of lease as well.

¶26

The contention of the BDA counsel that Petitioner

¶27

should also produce the copy of the Letter of Allotment may not be justified since there is already a registered Lease, that would have particulars of such Allotment Letters and

¶28

¶29

therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for execution & registration of a regular Sale Deed has to be considered if she produces the particulars and the documents as mentioned above sans Letter of Allotment.

¶30

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off directing Respondent-BDA to look into grievance of the Petitioner after she complies with what has been observed supra , within an outer limit of three months and in accordance with law. The BDA shall inform the result of such consideration to the Petitioner within the said period. All contentions are kept open.

¶31

It hardly needs to be stated that if at all Petitioner is in possession, it shall not be disturbed till the consideration takes place as above.

¶32

Costs made easy.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Smt. B.R. Sujatha v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B.R. Sujatha v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mysore Venkataswamy Chettiar Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Vikram J Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Chandrashekar Hebbar Vs the Commissioner

K v Srinivas Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Gajanana Kamath Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George Vs the State of Karnataka