Disposed

Renuka Prakash v. Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/2657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed this writ petition filed by a property vendor challenging non-consideration of her representation regarding identification of land sold by the original allottee. The Court directed the BDA to consider the grievance in eight weeks with costs made easy.

What did the court decide?

WP disposed; costs made easy; eight weeks time given for consideration of representation; all contentions kept open.

Renuka Prakash Vs Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2657 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2657 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RENUKA PRAKASH, W/O SRI. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT: NO.366, SURYA NILAYA, 13^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE AND SMT. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 14/12/2021 AND 06/01/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 2657 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to nonconsideration of her representation dated 06.01.2022, wherein a request is made to the BDA to identify the land bought by her from the original allottee by a Registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.2008, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that when a person sells property, there is a duty cast on him under Sections 54 & 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to identify the property in question unless it itself identifies the property and not otherwise. This duty partakes the character of public duty since allotment of the site is under the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and therefore, the Respondent-BDA being statutory authorities is bound to consider his clients representation.

¶22

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA opposes the Petition contending that his client had

¶23

¶24

WP No. 2657 of 2023

¶25

allotted the property to Sri.Chandramouli and

¶26

Sri.Chandramouli being the original party had no issue as to the identifying the property. Petitioner being vendee of the original allottee, therefore cannot have a grievance. Having so contended, he now fairly agrees to instruct his clients to look into grievance of the Petitioner as aired in the subject representation in accordance with law and in a time bound way; this is really appreciable.

¶27

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off; costs having been made easy. Time for consideration of representation is eight weeks. All contentions are kept open.

¶28

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information or documents from the side of Petitioner subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Renuka Prakash v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Prakash v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L Muniyappa Vs Government of Karnataka

M/S Reha Urban Infra Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

M/S Vijaya Commercial Credit Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

Mr. M L Sadashivayya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Maheshwari Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

K B Nagaraju Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer