Disposed

Smt Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/32761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to Bengaluru Development Authority to allot an alternative residential plot pursuant to its 1976 letter of assurance and her 1989 representation. Holding that a representation made three decades ago could not now be considered, the court permitted her to make one fresh representation to respondent No.3, to be considered within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation to respondent No.3 within two weeks; BDA to consider it in accordance with law within three months.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50921 WP NO.32761 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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.32761 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O G. BALAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, GOWRA GRUHA, SANKEY ROAD CROSS, ABSHOT LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 052. REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. PRATHIK P. S/O M. PRABHAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.559, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50921 WP NO.32761 OF 2024

¶19

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER.

¶20

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL PLOT TO THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER ELIGIBILITY AS ASSURED BY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIDE LETTER DATED 14^TH JULY, 1976 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST DATED 01^ST JUNE, 1989 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION; AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government

¶27

Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. H.T. Basavaraju, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 3 and 4.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50921 WP NO.32761 OF 2024

¶29

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking direction to the respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority to allot an alternative residential plot in her favour in accordance with her eligibility as assured by the Bengaluru Development Authority in its letter dated 14^th July, 1976 (Annexure-B). In this regard the petitioner has made representation dated 01^st June, 1989 (Annexure-D), seeking allotment of alternative Site.

¶30

Heard Sri. Manjunath M. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. H.T. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, the same would indicate that the petitioner has made representation to the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority during the year1989. Therefore, I am of the view that, the said representation cannot be considered at this length of time as the same is made three decades ago. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to make one more representation to the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:50921 WP NO.32761 OF 2024

¶34

respondent No.3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of representation that may be made by the petitioner. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶36

ARK

Smt Lakshmi Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmi Devi 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

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 Shamshad Begum Vs the Commissioner