Disposed

Smt. a G Indumathi v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024WP/28176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 for consideration of a 20-year-old representation regarding site allotment. The Court held that writ of mandamus could not be issued due to the lapse of two decades but left the petitioners free to approach the authority for redressal before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left to approach respondent BDA for redressal of grievances.

Smt. a G Indumathi Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49617 WP No. 28176 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.28176 OF 2019 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. A.G. INDUMATHI W/O C.M. GIRIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.127, 4^TH CROSS EWS 2^ND STAGE, KHB COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU -560 023.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -560001.

¶12

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

¶13

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ALLOTMENT SECTION) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -560001.

¶14

THE ENGINEERING MEMBER(ALLOTMENT SECTION) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -560001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHROITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-N AND PASS APPROPRIATE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49617 WP No. 28176 of 2019

¶19

ORDER IN ALLOTTING A SITE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, SO AS TO LIVE WITH DEPENDENTS CHILDREN IN A DECENT LOCALITY WITH HUMAN HABITATION; AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

In this Writ Petition, the prayer made by the petitioner is to direct the respondent - authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2003, produced as Annexure-N.

¶25

Having taken note of the averments made in the Writ Petition, as the representation made by the petitioner was two decades back, accordingly, writ of mandamus cannot be issued at this stage. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent - BDA for redressal of grievances.

¶26

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶28

sac

¶29

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt. a G Indumathi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a G Indumathi v. the Commissioner

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

Mariyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pushpa Malekal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Ganesh Anjappa Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt. Usharaju Vs the Commissioner

Smt v Lakshmidevi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka