Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1358 (KAR)

Puttaswamaiah S/o Late Huchaiah v. State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

2017-10-06

A.S.BOPANNA

body2017
ORDER : The learned Government Advocate, to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 and file Memo of Appearance in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No.4, 6 and 7 is unnecessary at this stage. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 11.08.2017 as at Annexure ‘A’ to the petitions. 3. The petitioners contend that they belong to the lower strata of the society and are persons who do not own any house sites. In that regard it is contended that the respondents had identified an extent of 8 acres land in Sy. No.159 of Kadabagere Village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District for the purpose of formation of a layout to allot sites under the Ashraya Scheme. In that regard, the petitioners contend that the ‘Hakku Pathras’ as at Annexure ‘C’ series were issued. The grievance of the petitioners is that though such ‘Hakku Pathras’ were issued and also certain internal correspondences were exchanged between the respondents, no action has been taken by the respondents to form the layout and put the petitioners in possession of such sites and complete the transactions pursuant to the ‘Hakku Pathras’ that were issued to the petitioners. It is in that light the petitioners are stated to have made the representation dated 11.08.2017 as at Annexure ‘A’ to the petitions. Since the representation has not been considered by the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Having taken note of the contention as put forth and keeping in view that the petitioners have only sought consideration of the representation, what is necessary to be taken note at the outset is that the representation as claimed by the petitioners has been made only as recent as on 11.08.2017. That apart what is also to be taken into consideration is that the very nature of the claim as put forth in the instant petition would indicate that several factual aspects are to be taken note by the respondents and thereafter the decision is to be taken in that regard. Therefore, a direction to consider the representation in any particular manner by the respondents would not arise at this juncture. Therefore, a direction to consider the representation in any particular manner by the respondents would not arise at this juncture. Therefore, without determining any right in favour of the petitioners in the instant petitions, a direction is necessary to be issued to the respondents to take note of the representation and take a decision in the matter. 5. Though the petitioners have referred to the representation dated 11.08.2017 and has sought direction against all the respondents, keeping in view the nature of the claim, I find it appropriate that the respondent No.3 shall secure all particulars from the concerned respondents and thereafter take a decision in the matter relating to the claim as put forth by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, instead of directing consideration of the very representation as at Annexure ‘A’, the petitioners are granted the liberty of filing a fresh representation with respondent No.3 along with the supporting documents based on which the petitioners are making their claim. On such representation being submitted by the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall secure the necessary particulars from the concerned officers/respondents and verify the same to take a decision in the matter. Such decision shall be taken by respondent No.3 within five months from the date on which the representation is made to respondent No.3. The representation as permitted through this order may either be made in the individual name of the petitioners or be submitted by the first petitioner to respondent No.3 on behalf of all the petitioners. On consideration the reply if issued to the petitioner No.1 shall constitute compliance of this direction to intimate the result of the consideration to the petitioners and the petitioner No.1 shall intimate the other petitioners. In term of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.