Disposed

Smt Sudhamani v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/8737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner allotted a site by BDA sought information on litigation concerning it after third parties obstructed her; BDA did not respond to representations. The court held BDA, as a public authority, must furnish information in its knowledge and directed it to respond within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to provide requested information, if within its knowledge, within six weeks.

Smt Sudhamani Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30765 WP No. 8737 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 8737 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUDHAMANI, W/O V.S.MUKUNDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A NO.108, MIG, KHB COLONY, SECOND PHASE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMRA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA H T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 25.09.2023 SUBMITTED ON 03.10.2023, 22.11.2023 SUBMITTED ON 29.11.2023 AND 12.02.2024 AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALSO TO

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30765 WP No. 8737 of 2024

¶17

DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN LIEU OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE - A TO C.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has been allotted site No.811 in IV 'T' Block in further extension of BSK Layout by Bengaluru Development Authority ('BDA' for short). On the ground that certain third parties are preventing the petitioner from developing the property allotted to her, the petitioner has made an application to BDA to furnish certain information regarding the property and also whether there are any litigation regarding the same. As the BDA is not responded to her representation, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the BDA upon instruction submits that sale deed has been executed in respect of the land concerned in favour of the petitioner and it is her responsibility

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30765 WP No. 8737 of 2024

¶24

to take care of the property. For that reason, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶25

Be that as it may, the petitioner has only sought information regarding any litigation involving BDA in respect of the property concerned. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is seeking the said information only to effectively defend the title and possession in respect of the property from the third parties.

¶26

Admittedly, the BDA is a Public Authority and is required to provide information, which is in the public domain to the person who requests the same in the manner known to law.

¶27

For the above said reasons, the following;

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Respondent- BDA is directed to consider the request of the petitioner by providing the information requested by her, if the same is within the knowledge of BDA. Same shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:30765 WP No. 8737 of 2024

¶32

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶34

PN CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt Sudhamani v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sudhamani 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

Smt K Vidya Vs Smt D v Sumithramma

Smt Yellamma Vs Smt K Muniyamma

M.M. Industrial Estate Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Smt. Munemma

Sri.B.C.Jagadeesha Vs Kum. Sonika

Mohammed Syfulla Vs Smt. Khairunnisa