Karnataka High Court
Sri Y R Ragunatha Rao vs The Commissioner on 2 November, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 37727 OF 2017(BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. Y.R. RAGHUNATHA RAO
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
2. SMT. CHAYADEVI
W/O. SRI.B.C. SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 283, 1ST CROSS
6TH MAIN, K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 022.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020.
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY -2
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V.VEDAMURTHY, ADV.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE- J AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent bearing No.BDA/DS-
2/AP/7/282/2017-18 dated 20.07.2017 produced at Annexure-J;
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot two sites of measurements 30 x 40 in the same locality i.e., Sir M.V.Layout, 6th Block to the petitioners;
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners, submits that it is the grievance of the petitioners that though their properties were acquired for the purpose of formation of Sir M.Visveswaraiah Layout, alternative site was allotted in Anjanapura, which is 12 K.m., farther from Sir M. 3 Visveswaraiah layout in addition to the fact that the said site is rocky and filled with rocks and stones and is not suitable for any purpose whatsoever. Under these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.11270/2011 which was dismissed by this Court on 28.03.2011 (Annexure-D). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.4854/2011. During the pendency of the said writ appeal, the petitioners were informed by the BDA that their claim would be considered and as such, the petitioners withdrew the said appeal. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite assuring the petitioners that they would address the grievances which resulted in them withdrawing the writ appeal, the respondents proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners by issuing the endorsement in Annexure-J and as such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4
5. The material on record indicates that the respondents have not addressed the grievances of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site in Sir M.Visveswaraiah layout as sought for by them in their representation at Annexure-K dated 15.02.2017. Under these circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to dispose of this petition directing the respondents to address the grievances of the petitioners including considering the representation at Annexure-K dated 15.02.2017 by setting aside the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J dated 20.07.2017. Respondent-BDA shall consider the said representation and address the grievances of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.