Disposed

Smt Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/24414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought direction to KIADB to consider her 2016 representations and execute a registered sale deed based on a possession certificate. The court permitted a fresh representation within two weeks and directed KIADB to consider it within four months, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a fresh representation within two weeks; KIADB to consider it within four months of receipt.

Smt Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51375 WP No. 24414 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24414 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MANJULA W/O A. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BEARING SY NO.35, ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, 2^ND PHASE, BEHIND WIPRO FACTORY, TUMKURU TOWN, TUMKURU - 572103.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3, II FLOOR, RASTROTHANA, PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51375 WP No. 24414 of 2024

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA RAOD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CUM DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND VIGILANCE OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, MARUTHI GROUPS, BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, NEAR SIT COLLEGE MAIN GATE, B H ROAD, TUMKURU - 572 103.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16.03.2016 AND 17.03.2016 VIDE ANNEXURES-L AND M AND FOR PASSING ORDERS TO EXECUTE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 03.02.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; ALTERNATIVELY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO EXECUTE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 03.02.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G FORTHWITH.

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51375 WP No. 24414 of 2024

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶22

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.03.2016 and 17.03.2016 (Annexures- L and M respectively).

¶27

Having taken note of the factual aspects on record, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to execution of registered Sale Deed in respect of the schedule property, by the respondents.

¶28

As the aforesaid representations are of the year 2016, petitioner is permitted to make one more representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter, respondent - KIADB is directed to consider the representation that may be filed by the petitioner,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:51375 WP No. 24414 of 2024

¶31

within four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶32

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶34

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula v. 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

K R Sreenath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaswamy @ Gangaswamaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N S Jaisimha Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri Abdul Jameel Vs the Commissioner

G C Thammegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashidhara N D Vs State of Karnataka