Allowed

Smt. K. Nagamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/27532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner requested the Karnataka Housing Board to consider their representations regarding site allotment. The Court ordered the respondent to consider the representations and pass necessary orders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider representations and pass orders within 30 days.

Smt. K. Nagamma Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6629 WP No. 27532 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 27532 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. K. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. LINGARAJU, R/AT NO. 139, YELIYURU, KOTTATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401.

¶11

SRI. H. R. RAJANNA S/O. LATE RANGANARASAIAH, RESIDING AT NO. 278, SLN NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE, KURABARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 086.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. RACHAIAH S/O. SIDDAIAH, C/O. M. GOWDA, NO. 113, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MAHADESHWARA LAYOUT, METGALLI POST, MYSORE-570 016.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. UMESH B N.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:6629 WP No. 27532 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAUVERY BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DTD 04.09.2023 AND 10.10.2023 OF P1, AND REPRESENTATION DTD 04.09.2023 OF P2, AND REPRESENTATION DTD 14.02.2022 AND 12.10.2023 OF P3 VIDE AT ANNX-A,A1,B,C AND C1 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

a. Direct the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 04.09.2023 and 10.10.2023 of 1^st petitioner, and representation dated 4.09.2023 of 2^nd petitioner and representations dated 14.02.2022 and 12.10.2023 of 3^rd petitioner vide at Annexure-A, A1, B, C and C1.

¶30

b. Issue any other Writ or orders/reliefs as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity .

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6629 WP No. 27532 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations at Annexure-A, A1, B, C and C1 respectively for allotment of site have not been considered by the respondent.

¶34

When applications are filed complying with all requirements of law, the same would have to be considered by the respondent and necessary orders passed either accepting or rejecting the request made, in either case to be accompanied by reasons. In the present case the representations having been made in the year 2022 and 2023 are yet to be considered by the respondents.

¶35

In that view the matter, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass necessary orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

iii. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any

¶39

opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners, the

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:6629 WP No. 27532 of 2023

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

same would have to be considered by the respondent in accordance with the applicable law and procedure.

¶44

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt. K. Nagamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Nagamma 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

Mis Anoosha K R Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt. v Hamsa Veni Vs the Commissioner

Sri P Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

N Nagaraju Vs the Commissioner

Mr. Preetham Tambe Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

Iifl Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka