Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 501 (KAR)

Leelavathi v. State of Karnataka

2015-04-29

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2015
ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has the grievance that her revenue site measuring 30 x 70 feet is used up for the public purpose of forming Banashankari 3rd Stage Layout by the second respondent-Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short). Sri K. Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has neither received compensation nor an alternative land in lieu of the revenue site lost by her. He submits that the BDA has come out with a scheme as is evident from its letter, dated 22-11-1976 (Annexure-B1) for allotting the alternative site to the revenue site holders for the loss of their revenue sites. He submits that the petitioner has been giving the affidavits and representations after representations. He submits that the latest representation (Annexure-C3) is submitted on 5-6-2013. 2. Sri Sreedhar submits that the issues raised in this petition are fully covered by this Court's order, dated 31-10-2014 passed in W.P. No. 6586 of 2014 connected with W.P. No. 6588 of 2014 (Annexure-F). In the said case the BDA was directed to consider the case of the similarly placed persons by accommodating them elsewhere by allotting the sites within six months. 3. Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent 2 submits that this petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. He submits that the acquisition of the petitioner's revenue site was in the year 1968 and that she filed the writ petition after a number of decades in 2013. He submits that pursuant to the scheme, which is found in the letter, dated 22-11-1976 (Annexure-B1), the individual letters were issued to all the revenue site losers. That one such letter was also sent to the petitioner is not even in dispute. However, for the reasons best known to herself, the petitioner did not file any affidavit to the effect that she owns no sites. 4. Sri Gopalaswamy emphatically denies that the petitioner submitted any representation. He asserts that the BDA has received the petitioner's first application, dated 5-6-2013. 5. Sri S. Lakshminarayana, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 1 submits that the petitioner's grievance are to be considered by the respondent 2 in accordance with law. 6. 4. Sri Gopalaswamy emphatically denies that the petitioner submitted any representation. He asserts that the BDA has received the petitioner's first application, dated 5-6-2013. 5. Sri S. Lakshminarayana, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 1 submits that the petitioner's grievance are to be considered by the respondent 2 in accordance with law. 6. On being asked as to whether any compensation is disbursed to the petitioner or any alternative land is given to the petitioner, Sri Gopalaswamy answers in the negative. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the revenue site acquired for the purpose and benefit of the second respondent-BDA. It is also not in dispute that no alternative site is given and no compensation is disbursed to the petitioner. Considering these undisputable facts of the case, this petition cannot be dismissed on the short ground of the delay and laches. Besides, this Court has already granted the relief to the similarly placed persons in W.P. No. 6586 of 2014 connected with W.P. No. 6588 of 2014 in its order, dated 31-10-2014 (Annexure-F). 8. I therefore dispose of this petition to consider the petitioner's case for the allotment of alternative land for the loss of her revenue site measuring 30 x 70 feet in accordance with its scheme, the particulars of which are found in its letter, dated 22-11-1976 (Annexure-B1) in accordance with law and this Court's order, dated 31-10-2014 passed in W.P. No. 6586 of 2014 connected with W.P. No. 6588 of 2014 and by taking into account the precedents in similar cases. The respondent 2 shall consider the petitioner's request for the allotment of alternative land meaningfully and subject to the availability of the sites as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order. 9. At this juncture, Sri Sreedhar submits, on instructions, that even if the alternative site is little smaller in dimension to the site which the petitioner could have been otherwise entitled to if she were to approach this Court early, it is acceptable to the petitioner. His submission is placed on record. No order as to costs.