Allowed

Sri H S Palaksha v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024WP/24529/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.10.2014 within an outer limit of three months, while expressly reserving judgment on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent BDA to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.10.2014 within three months and communicate the order passed.

Sri H S Palaksha Vs the Bengaluru Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9566 WP No. 24529 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24529 OF 2021 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. H.S.PALAKSHA, S/O SRI.S/O H.C.SIDDALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.P-1, BLOCK A, RAMANISARGHA, BALAJI LAYOUT, 29^TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V.RAMAN, BANGALORE – 560 093.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B. C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:9566 WP No. 24529 of 2021

¶21

RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.10.2014 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – H.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶23

M.NAGAPRASANNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his representation dated 20.10.2014.

¶26

Heard Sri. B.C. Chethan, learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the petitioner, Sri. Shivprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶28

The petitioner avers in the petition that he is a revenue site holder and is entitled to the relief that is sought in the representation so submitted by the BDA on 20.04.2014.

¶29

Learned counsel, Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar representing the BDA submits that, if reasonable time is

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:9566 WP No. 24529 of 2021

¶32

granted, the petitioner's representation would meet its

¶33

consideration in accordance with law.

¶34

Placing the said submission on record, we deem it appropriate to dispose the petition directing the respondent - BDA to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 20.10.2014, within an outer limit of three months, if not earlier and communicate the order so passed to the petitioner.

¶35

It is made clear that we have not considered the claim of the petitioner on its merit.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

SJK

Sri H S Palaksha v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Palaksha v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

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

Smt. Veena M Vs the State of Karnataka

Indradhanush Properties Private Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B S Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Narendra K P Vs State of Karnataka