Disposed

Sri. M. Mahadeva v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024WP/700/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of a government order and directions for land lease. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider a fresh representation from the petitioner within two weeks and decide within one month, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider fresh representation and decide within one month without reference to impugned GO dated 24.09.2021.

Sri. M. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:23521 WP No. 700 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 700 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M. MAHADEVA, S/O C.M. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO.37, 24TH MAIN, PUTTENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KSRTC BUS COMPLEX, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, K.G. ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23521 WP No. 700 of 2023

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. RD 323 LGB 2015, BENGALURU DATED 24.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE - N AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following

¶25

reliefs:

¶26

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

¶27

i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Government Order bearing No.RB 223 LGB 2015, Bengaluru dated 24.09.2021 issued by the 1^st Respondent vide Annexure-N;

¶28

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent for taking decision and for passing orders for lease of land described below in the schedule in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the 3^rd respondent dt:24.11.2018, order bearing No.LND(A)CR/239/14-15 vide AnnexureK.

¶29

iii) Alternatively, direct the respondent for granting of lease of land described below in favour of the petitioner as per Rule 28A of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2003 vide Notification dt:9.11.2006 and marked as Annexure-F bearing No.INCD 08 PHP 2006 to enable the petitioner to construct LPG Godown for carrying on business on his own being physically disabled person;

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:23521 WP No. 700 of 2023

¶32

iv) Issue such other writ, order or directions as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the above petition with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the concerned respondents within a period of two weeks from today and necessary directions may be issued to the concerned respondents to consider and to proceed further in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the necessary directions may be issued to the concerned respondents to take necessary steps pursuant to the same bearing in mind the material on record produced by the petitioner in the instant case.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, if fresh representation is submitted, the concerned respondents will consider and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:23521 WP No. 700 of 2023

¶38

submit a fresh representation along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondents shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law bearing in mind the material on record produced by the petitioner in the present petition, and the documents to be produced by the petitioner, and without reference to the impugned Government Order dated 24.09.2021 and in accordance with law and take appropriate decisions/appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of submission of the fresh representation by the petitioner.

¶39

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition

¶40

stands disposed of .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

PHM

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. M. Mahadeva v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Mahadeva 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fertilizer Mixture Manufacturers Association of India Vs Union of India

Sri.N.Puttegowda Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Benaka Brick Works Vs Bank of Baroda

M/S Metalex Steel Strips Private Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer

Mrs. Ifrah Simeen Vs the Union of India

Smt Rani Alias Kalpana Vs the District Registrar