High Court of Karnataka directed Bangalore Development Authority officials to afresh consider petitioner's representation for alternate site allotment within three months, overriding a previous decision.
Respondents directed to consider representations within three months; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 6575 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 6575 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. BALASUBRAMANIAM, S/O D. D. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.5, 5TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. V. KIRAN ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 13/03/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE BEARING NO. 1245/1, SITUATED AT 7TH BLOCK SIR. M VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, BENGALURU AND ETC.,
WP No. 6575 of 2023
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a direction for consideration of his representation dated 13.3.2023, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-G wherein, he has sought for allotment of alternate site, his site lost in the acquisition process. Learned counsel for the Petitioner banks upon order dated 31.12.2010, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C in support of the petition prayer. Learned Senior Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for respondent Nos.1 & 2, oppose the Petition contending that the petition lacks merits & therefore, the allotment of alternate site cannot be sought for as a matter of course. He notifies to the court that already a decision is taken and that cannot be faltered.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that the matter requires consideration
WP No. 6575 of 2023
afresh at the hands of the respondents regardless of the endorsement dated 31.12.2010.
In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off;
the respondents are directed to consider the subject representations in accordance with law and within a period of three months, all contentions are kept open.
It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner for due consideration of his Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authorities are required to afresh consider the petitioner's representation for allotment of an alternate site lost in acquisition.
Whether a prior decision dated 31.12.2010 precludes a fresh consideration of the matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. K. Balasubramaniam
The Commissioner, The Bangalore Development Authority
The Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
