IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8075 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK ALSO AT NO.33, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004.

2. SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O N.V. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S ALSO AT NO.120, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, Location: HIGH CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGLAURU - 560 018.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

3. SRI. KENCHANNA S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK ALSO AT NO.101, 2^ND BLOCK, 23^RD CROSS ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGLAURU - 560 010.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KIADB KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE BMRCL TTMC BUILDING, DOUBLE ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. HARISH N.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION AS A MANDATE OF SECTIONS 28(1) AND 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT TO REFLECT THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THESE NOTIFICATIONS, ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TO PAY COMPENSATION AS PER THE RATE DESCRIBED IN THE SUB-REGISTRAR NOTIFICATION PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-W DATED 10.07.2019 ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATION PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S DATED 05.12.2018.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to Respondent No.2 to pay compensation.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, unless there is a demand and refusal by the Respondent- Authorities, a writ of mandamus would not lie in the mater. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Respondent- Authorities by way of a representation seeking relief as claimed in the writ petition, and if such a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Respondent- Authorities within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, that may be made by the petitioner.

With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

(E.S.INDIRESH)

JUDGE rs CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34