Disposed

Smt Padmini Vadirajan v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/51412/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought allotment of an alternative BDA site in place of acquired land; her representation had gone unconsidered. The court disposed of the petition permitting a fresh representation and directing BDA to consider it within four months.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make a fresh representation with documents; BDA directed to consider it within four months in accordance with law.

Smt Padmini Vadirajan Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:44327 WP NO.51412 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.51412 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PADMINI VADIRAJAN W/O VADIRAJAN POTTI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT "ABHILASH", 1^ST BLOCK, 4^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, B.H. ROAD, MAHALAKSHMINANAGAR TUMAKURU - 572 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OFFICE OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44327 WP NO.51412 of 2016

¶19

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 04^TH APRIL, 2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITE IN PLACE OF SITE ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENT-BDA FOR FORMATION OF SIR M. VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT AS PER APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.33731, REGISTRATION NO.273463 DATED 16^TH DECEMBER, 2002.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, pursuant to intimation dated 28^th December, 2010 (AnnexureE), the petitioner has made representation dated 04^th April, 2016 (Annexure-J) by furnishing the copy of documents sought for by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of alternative site, however, the same has not be considered by the respondent.

¶24

Heard Sri. Pavan Kumar S., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Madhusudhan M.N., appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ papers, the same would

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:44327 WP NO.51412 of 2016

¶28

indicate that the representation made by the petitioner is of the year-2016. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to make one more representation to respondents along with relevant documents sought for by the respondent No.2 in intimation letter dated 28^th December, 2010 (Annexure-E) within an period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such a representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority shall consider the same within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of representation that may be made by the petitioner in accordance with law. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶30

ARK

Smt Padmini Vadirajan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Padmini Vadirajan 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. B.R. Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Rajashekhar Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Sri P R Balraj Vs the Commissioner

N. Anitha Vs the Commissioner

Mrs. Hildaabraham Vs State of Karnataka

Shibi Baby Vs Commissioner