Disposed

Inidan Women Development Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024WP/8400/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trust sought quashing of a panchayat resolution and consideration of its representation for allotment of a site from a layout in Sy.No.28, Agara Village. A Co-ordinate Bench had already directed the BBMP Chief Commissioner to form the layout and allot sites. Nothing survived; petition disposed with liberty to apply.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioner to make an application if called for by the Chief Commissioner.

Inidan Women Development Trust Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 8400 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

INIDAN WOMEN DEVELOPMENT TRUST(REGISTERED) POLICE JAYARAM HOUSE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, TATAGUNI, BENGALURU 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CHANDRAVATHI.S

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT B AND S N BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 027

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BBMP RR NAGARA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGLURU - 560 098

¶15

DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PARISHISHTA JATHI,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶17

ALEMARI, AREALEMARI SMOOKSHMA AND ATHISMOOKSHA SAMUDAYAGALA ABHIVRUDHI KOSHA

¶18

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 4^TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶19

AGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BENGALURU - 560 082

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 SRI. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION/ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-5 AS PER ANNEXURE-J DATED 08.02.2022, DIRECTING THE R1 SHALL CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking for quashing of Annexure-J dated 08.02.2022 issued by 5^th respondent and sought for mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to consider representation dated 15.02.2022 vide

¶28

Annexure-G.

¶29

The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶30

The 1^st respondent granted a land in Sy.No.28 of Agara Grama Panchayath Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 7 acres 5 guntas of land. The State Government had established Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation for upliftment of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.02.2022 before the 1^st respondent. As per order dated 04.04.2015, respondent No.1 has not considered the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶33

representation and issued Annexure-J. Hence, this writ petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶35

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted representation for allotment of site, but respondent No.1 had not considered the representation and submits that in an identical matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18630/2023 disposed of on 05.06.2024, wherein it has directed the Chief Commissioner to take the responsibility of calling for applications, scrutinize them and identify the beneficiaries for the allotment of site. Learned counsel submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶39

Per contra learned counsel for respondents also

¶40

submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶41

Perused the record and considered the

¶42

submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

It is not in dispute that petitioner has submitted a representation for allotment of site formed in the layout of Sy.No.28 of Agara Grama Panchayath Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk to an extent of 7 acres 5 guntas of land.

¶44

Similarly placed petitioners filed writ petition in W.P.No.18630/2023, wherein the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP had submitted that the Chief Commissioner of BBMP will appoint a Special Commissioner or any other responsible officer to take the responsibility of calling for applications, scrutinize them and identify the beneficiaries for allotment of the sites. The Co-ordinate Bench considering the submission made

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶46

by the learned counsel for BBMP disposed of writ petition with a direction to the Chief Commissioner of the BBMP to ensure formation of residential layout in an extent of 7.05 acres of land in Sy.No.28 of Agara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, carving out residential sites along with civic amenities and necessary basic facilities and to appoint a competent officer to over see the scrutiny of the applications for allotment of the sites. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶47

As Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already

¶48

directed the Chief Commissioner BBMP to call for applications and for allotment of sites and identify the beneficiaries and thereafter allotted the site. In view of the same nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition and the same has to be disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an application, if called for by the Chief Commissioner.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:40169 WP No. 8400 of 2022

¶51

10. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶52

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.

¶53

SD/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶54

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Inidan Women Development Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inidan Women Development Trust v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S B Siddaraju Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Sapthashri Souharda Credit Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Hussain Bi Vs Mohammed Dasthagir

Sri Manohar Das v Vs the Commissioner

Smt Usharani Vs M Ramesh

Sri B S Manjunath Vs Sri Byranna