Allowed

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/4392/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by legal representatives of a deceased applicant seeking consideration of representations for allotment of a 20x40 plot. The court held the municipal authorities had abdicated their duty by not considering or passing orders on the representations and issued mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to respondent No.1 to consider Annexures-G and H representations and pass orders within 15 days.

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:149 WP No. 4392 of 2017

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4392 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI T SUBAIAH @ SUBANNA S/O KUPPUSWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶10

1A. SMT. T.B. CHANDRAVATI W/O. SRI. T.B. SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O. LAKSHMIPUR EXTENSION NEAR SEVA KENDRA HASSAN - 563 201

¶11

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

1B. SMT. H.S. KAVITA D/O. T.B. SUBBAIAH @ SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O. NO.1767, EWS, BUS STOP ROAD YALAHANKA NEW TOWN 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 064

¶13

1C. SMT. H.S. TEJASWINI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O. T.B. SUBBAIAH @ SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O. NO.391/1, SURAVI RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KALYAN NAGAGR BENGALURU - 560 043

¶14

1D. SUNIL KUMAR H.S.

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:149 WP No. 4392 of 2017

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O. T.B. SUBBAIAH @ SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMIPUR EXTENSION NEAR SEVA KENDRA HASSAN - 563 201

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN - 583 201

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 583 201

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R2 SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶26

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-G DATED 20.02.2007 AND THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-H DATED 27.01.2014 AND ALLOT THE PLOT MEASURING 20x40 MOREFULLY DISCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:149 WP No. 4392 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶34

following reliefs:

¶35

" Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to:

¶36

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, to respondents to consider the representation at Annexure-G dated 20/02/2007 and the representation at Annexure-H dated 27/1/2014 and allot the plot measuring 20' x 40' morefully described in the schedule to the petitioner.

¶37

b) Grant such other and further reliefs this Hon'ble court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner is that the

¶39

representations which had been submitted by the petitioner on 20.02.2007 at Annexure-G and on 27.01.2014 at Annexure-H for allotment of plot has not been considered by the respondents.

¶40

Though learned counsel for respective respondents submit that there are several correspondence which has taken place between the petitioner and the respondents, the fact remains that the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:149 WP No. 4392 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

representations which had been submitted in the year 2007 and 2014 are yet to be considered and orders passed by the respondents.

¶45

Whenever any representation or application is filed by a citizen before the respondent-Municipal Authorities, it is required for the respondents to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, either accepting or rejecting the representation. Needless to say if an order of rejection is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by cogent reasons. Neither having been done, in my considered opinion, respondent No. 1 has abdicated his duties and not passed any orders for the last several years leaving the petitioner no other option but to approach this Court. The petition having been filed in the year 2017, even till today the representation continues to be unanswered and unconsidered.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:149 WP No. 4392 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i.Writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued.

¶52

ii.Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 20.02.2007 and 27.01.2014 at Annexures-G

¶53

and H and pass necessary orders within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶54

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶55

BSV CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Subaiah @ Subanna 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Muniyappa. M. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Shri Guru Transport Vs State of Karnataka

Abubarkar Siddique Vs the Karnataka State Board of Waqf

Smt Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Nizamuddin Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N. Bhimesh Vs the State of Karnataka