Disposed

Smt Shamshad Begum v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/29447/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus against the Bengaluru Development Authority to execute a sale deed for a flat as per a lease-cum-sale agreement. The court held mandamus would not lie unless petitioners first approach the authorities, and permitted them to make a representation within two weeks, which BDA must consider within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to BDA; BDA to consider it in accordance with law within three months.

Smt Shamshad Begum Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50919 WP NO.29447 OF 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.29447 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUM D/O LATE AZEEZ PASHA AND LATE SHAKEELA BEGUM, W/O SRI. SALEEM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 1^ST CROSS, SUDHAMANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶9

SMT. ASFIYA TARANNUM D/O LATE AZEEZ PASHA AND LATE SHAKEELA BEGUM, W/O SRI. SHABEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, NAZARABAD, TUMAKURU.

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. RUMANA D/O LATE AZEEZ PASHA AND LATE SHAKEELA BEGUM, W/O SOHAIL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.925, BAZAR STREET, NEAR POST OFFICE, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶12

SMT. YASMEEN AZIZ D/O LATE AZEEZ PASHA AND LATE SMT. SHAKEELA BEGUM,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50919 WP NO.29447 OF 2024

¶14

W/O MUBARAK SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.30/2, 2^ND CROSS, M.V. BLOCK, PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶15

SMT. NAVEEN AZEEZ D/O LATE AZEEZ PASHA AND LATE SHAKEELA BEGUM, W/O SYED IMRAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.925, BAZAR STREET, NEAR POST OFFICE, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. TANVEER AHMED SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶20

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE FLAT AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:50919 WP NO.29447 OF 2024

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel accepts notice for

¶29

respondents.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Flat No.925 situate at 'A' Type Block, Austin Town, Bengaluru (now BBMP assigned New No.1040, PID No.69-56, 925, BDA Flats, Neelasandra, Bengaluru) as per lease-cum-sale agreement produced at Annexure-A.

¶31

Heard Sri. Tanveer Ahmed Shariff, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into account the factual aspects on record, I am of the view that, writ of mandamus would not lie unless the petitioners approach the respondent-Authorities. In that view of the matter, it is open for the petitioners to approach the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:50919 WP NO.29447 OF 2024

¶35

respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority by making representation, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such a representation is made by the petitioners, the respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of representation that may be made by the petitioners. Accordingly, writ petition is

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶38

ARK

Smt Shamshad Begum v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shamshad Begum 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

Sri K Srinivasa Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Madhuri P Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

B. M. Anjaneya Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muni Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Prema S Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Smt Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Karnataka