SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38923

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
KRISHNA S DIXIT, MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA, JJ
B K KESHAVA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 4758 / 2024



Advocates:
SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR R., ADVOCATE; SRI.M RAJAKUMAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI.SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR., ADV., FOR R2 & 3

Authorities must address grievances in a timely manner as mandated by constitutional provisions, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 - Petition for writ of Mandamus directing the Third Respondent to consider the representation for allotment of alternative developed land - The court emphasizes the duty of authorities to grant redressal as mandated by Article 350 - The representation will be considered in a time-bound manner after hearing the petitioner. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Fairness in Administrative Action - The court notes the assurance from the State and BDA to consider the petitioner's grievance fairly and in accordance with law, provided the petitioner cooperates. (Paras 2-3)

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

This Petition invoking Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India , has the following prayers:

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Third Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-M, Dated: 10.4.23 for allotment of 40% alternative developed land and further direct the r3 to allot 40% developed alternative land in the schedule property;

b) Direct the respondents to appoint evaluator and to evaluate the value of the building existing in the schedule property and to allot alternate land for the value to be fixed for the construction;

c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argues that when a citizen makes a representation airing his grievance, it is the bounden duty of concerned authorities to grant redressal in accordance with law as constitutionally mandated by Article 350 . He also points out that apart from the grievance aired in the subject representation, petitioner seeks appointment of an evaluator to value the building existing in the schedule property and that, BDA has to explore the possibility of Petitioner retaining the building in accordance with the extant policy.

3. State is represented by learned AGA and the BDA speaks through its Sr. Panel Counsel. Both they having opposed the Petition for some time, now in all fairness assure the Court that the subject representation of Petitioner would be duly considered in a time bound way and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to him provided that he also cooperates in the process. This is really appreciable.

In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off. It is open to the Respondent – BDA to solicit any information/documents from the side of Petitioner as are required for due consideration of his grievance. Time for compliance is eight weeks. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top