Disposed

Sri Mukundaiah C v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/4400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed a writ petition seeking allotment of marginal land. Respondent authorities agreed to consider the grievance in a time-bound manner, placing the petitioner on notice for exemplary costs if compliance is delayed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondents directed to consider grievance within three months, otherwise liable for exemplary costs.

Sri Mukundaiah C v Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4400 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.4400 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MUKUNDAIAH C.V. S/O. LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, B BLOCK, SHIVAJINAGAR POLICE QUARTERS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 052. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI BASAVARAJ, PANEL ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4400 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/01/2021 AND 20/12/2021 BEFORE THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND F RESPECTIVELY AND REPRESENTATION DATED 21/12/2021 BEFORE THE R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-G FOR ALLOTMENT OF MARGINAL LAND MEASURING 28.34 SQ. MTRS ATTACHED TO THE PETITIONERS SITE BEARING NO.180, MEASURING 20 X 30 SITUATED AT 7^TH BLOCK, SIR.M.VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT BY CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SECRETARY AS PER ANNEXURED BY FIXING THE ALLOTMENT PRICE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE OF THE SITE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to nonconsideration of his representations dated 11.01.2021, 20.12.2021 and 21.12.2022 copies whereof avail at Annexures-E, F & G wherein he has sought consideration of his claim for allotment of the marginal land that is adjoining.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that

¶24

there has been a catena of decisions by the BDA itself which provide for allotment of adjoining lands subject to certain terms & conditions and therefore, despite the

¶25

¶26

WP No. 4400 of 2023

¶27

recommendation by the Executive Engineer of the BDA and the Deputy Secretary of the BDA, the process has been left half way through . He submits that this is not a fair thing to happen in a welfare State.

¶28

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for respondent No.1 and Sri. Basavaraj learned panel advocate on request appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 although initially opposed the petition contending that in the absence of a justiciable right, writ petition is not maintainable. Learned panel counsel having so contended agrees now to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of petitioner as has been aired in the subject representations in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. This is fairly appreciable.

¶29

In the above circumstances the writ petition stands disposed off. Time for compliance is three months.

¶30

All contentions are kept open.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 4400 of 2023

¶33

If the delay is brooked, petitioner may move a memo

¶34

seeking levy of exemplary costs on the lapsing officials of the BDA.

¶35

Now, no costs.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

MBM

Sri Mukundaiah C v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mukundaiah C v. Vs the State of Karnataka

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

T Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B C Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajegowda Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri. a Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

M S Saileela Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Kempabyregowda. M. B. Vs the State of Karnataka