Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Channaibhairayya, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. He claimed to be a Power of Attorney holder of one Smt Latha under a registered General Power of Attorney dated 11.10.1995 in respect of site No.53 formed in Sy.No.46/1 of Ullal village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. According to the petitioner, Smt Latha had purchased 1 acre 15½ guntas in Sy.No.46/1 under a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1995 from R.Veerabhadraiah and formed a layout of sites. The petitioner alleged that he had made representations dated 5.10.2006, 5.1.2007, and 9.5.2007 to the respondents (Commissioner, Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Revenue Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority) seeking release of his site from acquisition, but these representations were not considered. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider his representations. The court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Consideration of Representation - The petitioner, claiming to be a Power of Attorney holder of the owner of a site, sought a direction to the BDA to consider his representations for release of the site from acquisition. The court held that the BDA must consider the representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a specified time frame. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bangalore Development Authority is obligated to consider the petitioner's representations seeking release of his site from acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 5.10.2006, 5.1.2007, and 9.5.2007 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Power of Attorney holder's right to represent
- Consideration of representation by statutory authority
