Sri M Suresh Vs the Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22-11-2024 AND 01-07-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND F1 RESPECTIVELY FOR ALLOTMENT OF SITE BEARING NO.2522 AND

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43005 WP No. 24623 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

2523 MEASURING 6 x 9 MTRS EACH SITUATED AT BANASHANKARI 6^TH STAGE LAYOUT (FORMED IN SY.NO.89 OF HEMMIGEPURA VILLAGE) AS AN ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF SURRENDERING OF SITE BEARING NO.241/Z4 AND 241/Z5 MEASURING 6 x 9 MTRS EACH SITUATED AT HBR 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK LAYOUT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by him dated 22.11.2024 and 01.07.2025 at Annexures-F and F1 respectively for allotment of sites bearing Nos. 2522 and 2523 measuring 6 x 9 meters each situated at Banashankari 6^th Stage Layout (formed in Sy. No. 89 of Hemmigepura Village), as alternative sites in lieu of surrendering of sites bearing Nos. 241/Z4 and 241/Z5 measuring 6 x 9 meters each situated at HBR 1^st Stage, 4^th Block Layout.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶27

the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43005 WP No. 24623 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The respondents-Bengaluru Development

¶31

Authority (‘BDA’ for short) allotted site bearing Nos. 241/Z4 and 241/Z5 measuring 6 x 9 meters each situated at HBR 1^st Stage, 4^th Block Layout in favour of petitioner’s vendor under the Incentive Scheme. The petitioner purchased the said sites under a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2020 and has been in possession of the property. However, in the year 2024, the BDA passed an order canceling the allotment of the said sites in favour of the petitioner’s vendor, stating that the allotment was not in accordance with Rule 4 (b) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989.

¶32

The petitioner thereafter submitted

¶33

representations to the respondents, stating that sites bearing Nos. 2522 and 2523 measuring 6 x 9 meters were available for allotment, and requested that the same be allotted as alternate sites in his favour. It is the petitioner’s contention that as per the note sheet of

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43005 WP No. 24623 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondent No.2, the availability of the said sites was verified and recorded. However, despite a specific report confirming availability, no steps have been taken by the respondents to allot alternative sites to the petitioner. Non-consideration of the petitioner’s representations has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s representations will be considered by the competent authority within a reasonable time in accordance with law.

¶38

The said submission is placed on record.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner would stand

¶40

redressed if suitable directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation keeping in mind the note sheet at Annexure-G. Accordingly, this Court pass the following :

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:43005 WP No. 24623 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶46

(ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to consider

¶47

the representations of the petitioner at Annexures-F and F1 dated 22.11.2024 and 01.07.2025 keeping in mind the note sheet at Annexure-G, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶50

CKL

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Sri M Suresh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Suresh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaya Villa Owners Association Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Janardhan Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S C Sharma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri. Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M D Charanraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M R Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka