1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION No.45475/2016 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O BAJANTHRI MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT ACHATNAHALLI VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK -563101. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA S V, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA -560001

2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 2 ND FLOOR RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 2 ND FLOOR RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING 2

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563101

5. THE TASILDAR KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563101

6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563101 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T S MAHANTESH, HCGP. FOR R1, R4-6 SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. R2 & 3)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT R1 TO 3 PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS FOR COMPENSATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IN SY.NO.133 MEASURING 1 ACRE 0.20 GUNTAS, OF ACHATNAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in respect of the land referred to in the petition. 3

2. Through the objection statement, the respondents No.2 and 3 have contended that the representation as submitted by the petitioner has already been considered and an endorsement dated 15.11.2016 has been issued to the petitioner. If that be the position, the prayer made in the petition would not survive for consideration at this juncture.

3. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the reasons indicated in the endorsement dated

15.11.2016, it is for the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

With such liberty, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms