In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 30Th Day of January, 2014 Before Writ Petition No.24304/2013 (Lb-Res)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.24304/2013 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS W/O. VENKATESH R/AT. KEMPAPURA, YEMALUR POST BANGALORE – 562 106. 2. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE – 562 106. 3. SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O. LATE D.KRISHNAPPA R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 106. 4. SRI. K. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. LATE D. KRISHNAPPA R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 106. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SRINIVAS BHAT, ADV.) 2 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT NERALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE – 562 106. 3. THE SECRETARY THE ANEKAL AREA LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AUTHORITY CHANDAPURA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE – 562 106. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR AN ORDER OF THAT NATURE TO THE R.3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DT.16.2.2013 VIDE ANNX-L IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 O R D E R Alleging that a memorandum of representation dated 16.02.2013, as at Annexure-L, submitted to the 3rd respondent has not been considered and decision made known to the petitioners, this writ petition was filed to direct the 3 rd respondent to consider the said representation. 2. Petitioners have submitted a representation vide Annexure-L on 16.02.2013, to the 3 rd respondent, for deletion of the land bearing Sy.No.56/2 of Thirumagondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, from the reservation of CA sites. A perusal of the representation shows that a layout has been formed by G.P.R. House Building Private Limited, represented by one S.V.Babu, after getting approval of plan from the BDA in respect of various properties and in the said plan Sy.No.56/2 belonging to the applicants/petitioners has been shown as CA sites. Respondent No.3 was called upon to cancel the said entry in the layout plan. 4 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, when asked as to under what provision of law the 3 rd respondent has the legal obligation to consider the representation as at Annexure-L, he was candid enough to admit that there is no statutory provision under which the 3 rd respondent can consider the said representation. 4. Since it is not shown that the 3 rd respondent has been vested with the authority to cancel/delete the land from the reservation of CA sites, the petitioners cannot have any grievance with regard to non- consideration of the representation vide Annexure-L. A statutory can be compelled to perform statutory duty provided the statute vests with the authority such a power . In the instant case, the petitioners have been not able to show any power having been vested with the 3rd respondent to consider their grievance. Hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the 3 rd respondent. 5 In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is rejected. However, it is open to the petitioners to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Sd/- JUDGE ca .

Load more