RAMEGOWDA v. Court of Karnataka
Case at a glance
- Bench
- E S INDIRESH
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:47934
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.23357 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE KULLARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.228, ARALIKATTE ROAD, KOORGALI VILLAGE, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 018.
2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.228, ARALIKATTE ROAD, KOORGALI VILLAGE, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 018. (BY SRI. BHARATHGOWDA B.R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KIADB HEAD OFFICE, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDINGS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47934 WP NO.23357 OF 2024
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR) NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU ZONE, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, METAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA ZONAL OFFICE, METAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSURU - 570 016.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZONAL OFFICE, METAGAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 016.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER, MYSURU ZONE, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS SURVEYOR, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47934 WP NO.23357 OF 2024 MYSURU ZONE, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REP. BY ITS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MYSURU ZONE, K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016.
JOINT DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, C.T.I. BUILDING, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.
M/S DHRUTHI ENTERPRISES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. RANJITHA K.V., SURVEY NO.76/3, ILVALA HOBLI, KOORGALI VILLAGE, MYSURU - 570 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 & R10; SRI. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14TH JULY, 2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY CONSIDER HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMURS AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47934 WP NO.23357 OF 2024 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 14th July, 2010 (Annexure-C) for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate'; Application produced at Annexure-D for preparation of Survey sketch; and representation dated 13th September, 2022 (Annexure-J) for allotment of land left out after acquisition in Survey No.76/3 of Koorgalli Village, Ilvala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk.
2. Heard Sri. Bharathgowda B.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 10; and Sri. Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 9.
Operative part
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, the same would indicate that the petitioners are seeking relief in respect of allotment of un-acquired portion of land by the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47934 WP NO.23357 OF 2024 respondents. In that view of the matter, respondents 4 and 5 herein are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 13th September, 2022 (Annexure-J) in accordance with law, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.