Karnataka High Court
Sri S K Nataraj vs The Commissioner on 21 February, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.36943/2016(BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI S. K. NATARAJ,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.144, SARAKKI
JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE
BANGALORE-78.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. K. GIRISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE-01.
2. THE SECRETARY
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE-01.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-2,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE-01.
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SOUTH DIVISION,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE-01.
2
5. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BANASHANKAR SUB-DIVSION,
SOUTH DIVISION,
BANGALORE-78.
6. SANJEEV SAROGI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
MAJOR, R/AT NO.670, 17TH CROSS,
J. P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
7. JAYARAJU B.,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
MAJOR, R/AT NO.671, 17TH CROSS,
J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
8. A.H.VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
MAJOR, R/AT NO.672, 17TH CROSS,
J. P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
9. B.L.MANJULA,
D/O K. H. LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH,
MAJOR, R/AT NO.673, 17TH CROSS,
JP NAGAR 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
10. SRI A NOTYANANDA NAYAK,
S/O LATE SRI A. NARAYANA NAYAK,
AGED 74 YEARS,
NO.691, 17TH CROSS,
J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MURGESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G. S. KANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8;
SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R10)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 16.5.2016, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND PASS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE
ORDER ON SAID REPRESENTATION, VIDE ANNEXURE-A
TO A3.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
I.A. FOR THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 authorities to consider the representations dated 16.05.2016, produced as per Annexures-A to A3.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.05.1955, petitioner's mother purchased a part of Sy.No.12/1A situated at Sarakki village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. In the year 1980, the petitioner and his family members sold major portion of Sy.No.12/1A and retained some portion towards western side. From 1980 to 2015, the Bangalore Development Authority formed many sites in Sy.No.12 and allotted some portion of 4 petitioner's property to the allottees i.e., Site Nos.670, 671, 672 and 673, as margin land. On 05.05.2016, petitioner sought information from the BDA regarding allotment of margin land. On 12.05.2016 the BDA furnished the information along with survey sketch. Immediately, on 16.05.2016, petitioner made representations to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 authorities to cancel the allotment made in favour of the allottees i.e., site Nos.670 to 673 as margin lands and further requested to restore the said land in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of the said representations, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 authorities have not considered the same till today. Therefore, he is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10, Sri A.C.Balaraj, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8, submit that they are the affected parties and therefore, an opportunity of hearing should 5 be given to them before considering the petitioner's representations. Sri A.C.Balaraj, learned counsel submits that the entire survey number 12 has been acquired by the BDA and formed layout in they year 1967. The submission is placed on record.
4. Sri Murugesh, learned counsel representing Sri G.S.Khannur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the petitioner's representations will be considered only in accordance with law, if not already considered and disposed of. The submission is placed on record.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that his mother purchased Sy.No.12/1A and later sold some portion of the property in the year 1980. Till 2015, the BDA formed several sites in the said survey number and allotted to various persons. Among them, Site Nos.670 to 673 were allotted as margin land. Therefore, 6 petitioner submitted representations to respondent Nos.1 to 5 on 16.05.2016. The same is not considered by the respondents, till today. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. It is well settled that, whenever aggrieved party makes a representation to the authorities, it is the duty and obligation of the authorities to consider the same and pass orders within a reasonable time, in accordance with law. The same is not done by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 authorities in the present case, though the representations were submitted as long back as on 16.05.2016.
7. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 to 5/authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 16.05.2016, after hearing all the respondents and other allottees/affected persons, if any, and pass orders within a period of three months from today, if not 7 already considered and disposed, in accordance with law. Petitioner is at liberty to produce any material documents in support of his claim, before the respondent Nos.1 to 5/authorities.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm