Disposed

N. Anitha v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/7887/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge oral order directing the Bangalore Development Authority Commissioner to consider the petitioner's late representation regarding marginal land allotment constitutionally within four months. The High Court disposed of the writ petition. No precedent issues discussed as the court solely directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider latest representation dated 27th December, 2022; action within four months; Writ Petition disposed.

N. Anitha Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44331 WP NO.7887 OF 2023

¶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.7887 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N. ANITHA D/O P. NAGASUNDARA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1021, 'SRI KRISHNA', 5^TH MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, 3^RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE MEASURE AND AKARABHAND AS PER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 24^TH DECEMBER, 2018, 25^TH JANUARY, 2021, 28^TH MAY, 2021, 28^TH MARCH, 2022, 11^TH APRIL, 2022, 19^TH MAY, 2022, 24^TH NOVEMBER, 2022 AND 27^TH DECEMBER, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE 'A' TO 'A7' RESPECTIVELY.; AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44331 WP NO.7887 OF 2023

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-consideration of the representations of the petitioner by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of marginal land to the petitioner.

¶23

Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B. Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority.

¶24

Sri. B. Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority contended that the marginal land would be granted only, if the Site in question is a corner Site and that too in terms of Rules contained under Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984.

¶25

In the backdrop of submission made by learned counsel Sri. B. Vachan, respondent-Bangalore Development Authority is directed to consider the latest representation made by the petitioner dated 27^th December, 2022 (Annexure-A7) in

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:44331 WP NO.7887 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

accordance with law, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, writ petition is

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶31

ARK

N. Anitha v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Anitha v. the Commissioner

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

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

Smt Padmini Vadirajan Vs the Commissioner

Mrs. Hildaabraham Vs State of Karnataka

Shibi Baby Vs Commissioner