Disposed

Smt Manju N Jadav v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/33092/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this single-judge writ petition, the petitioner sought directions for the respondent authorities to consider a representation dated 11.11.2024. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation addressed to the BDA, with which the BDA must comply within four months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Petitioner directed to file a fresh representation to BDA, which must be considered within four months.

Smt Manju N Jadav Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50623 WP No. 33092 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.33092 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MANJU N. JADAV W/O. NARESH A. JADAV, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT. NO.395, 4^TH BLOCK, NEAR WATER TANK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶14

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:50623 WP No. 33092 of 2024

¶17

KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-L; AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent-State and Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50623 WP No. 33092 of 2024

¶27

In this writ petition, grievance of the

¶28

petitioner is with regard to non-consideration of her representation dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure-L) by the respondent-authorities.

¶29

Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing

¶30

for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority submitted that representation dated 11.11.2024 is made by Kodigehalli Revenue Site Holders Welfare Committee (registered) and not by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is open for the petitioner to make one more representation to the respondent-

¶31

Bangalore Development Authority along with Annexure-L dated 11.11.2024 to enable the

¶32

respondent-BDA to take decision in the matter in accordance with law. If such a representation is made by the petitioner within one week from the from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered by the respondent-BDA within an

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50623 WP No. 33092 of 2024

¶34

outer limit of four months, thereafter in the light of observation made by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783 of 2014 and connected matters disposed of on 22.02.2024. Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶35

disposed of .

¶36

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶37

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt Manju N Jadav v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manju N Jadav 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

G H Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Santosh P. G. Vs the Commissioner

Narayanaswamy C Vs M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

Smt. Varalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Susan Cherian Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha Vs the Commissioner