Dr. Sarvabhouma Satagoud Bagali v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2025:KHC:15617-DB( WP(No.(7356(of(2025( ( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(16 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(KRISHNA(S(DIXIT( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(RAMACHANDRA(D.(HUDDAR( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(7356(OF(2025((BDA)( BETWEEN:(( ( DR.,SARVABHOUMA,SATAGOUD,BAGALI, S/O,LATE,SATAGOUD,BAGALI,, AGED,ABOUT,78,YEARS,, FORMER,MLA,, R/A,NO.77,,SRINAGARA,COLONY,, SOLAPURA,ROAD,,VIJAYAPURA-586,101,, VIJAYAPURA,DISTRICT., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,CHETHAN,A,C.,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,, Digitallytisigned VIKASA,SOUDHA,,BENGALURU-560,001.,by0CHETAN0B ,C

2., THE,COMMISSIONER,, Location:0HIGH BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,,COURT0OF KARNATAKA T.CHOWDAIAH,ROAD,, BENGALURU-,560,020., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.B,RAVINDRANATH.,,AGA,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.B,S,SACHIN.,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, I), ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, MANDAMUS, DIRECTING, THE, SECOND, RESPONDENT,TO,EXECUTE,THE,SALE,DEED,FOR,SITE,NO.1572,, NDM.,VISHVESHWARAYA,LAYOUT,2 ,BLOCK,MEASURING,50,FEET,

80 FEET IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH ANNEXURE-A AND II) PASS SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL ORDER

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

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-execution & registration of a due conveyance in respect of the subject site allotted to him under 'G' category. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a constitutional mandate enacted in Article 350 of the Constitution of India to the effect that whenever a citizen raises the grievance in writing, it cannot go unnoticed by the authorities that be, for an indefinite period.

¶2Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA initially resisted the petition saying that if there is no sale deed, it can be a case of Specific Performance for which appropriate suit proceeding has to

be instituted and not before the court of Constitutional Jurisdiction.

¶3Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the subject representation merits due consideration at the hands of respondent-BDA in a time bound manner and in accordance with law. Our view is supported by the text of Article 350 of the Constitution which is as under: "350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances. Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be."

Grievance of the petitioner having not been granted redressal in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be kept waiting and guessing indefinitely.

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the 2nd respondent to consider or cause to be considered petitioner's representations dated

21.2.2022 &

24.3.2022, in accordance with law and within an outer limit of eight weeks. All contentions are kept open.

It is open to the answering respondents to solicit any information/records from the side of the petitioner subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked. Costs have been reluctantly made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

Cbc/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25