Lakshmamma vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Ravi Malimath , K.L.Manjunath
Listed On:
7 Oct 2014
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.336 OF 2013(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
-
- Lakshmamma W/o late Madaiah Aged about 88 years
-
- M.Mahadeva S/o late Madaiah Aged about 70 years
-
- M.Nanjappa S/o late Madaiah Aged about 68 years
-
- M.Srikanta S/o late Madaiah, Aged about 55 years
-
- M.Basavaraju S/o late Madaiah Aged about 52 years
- M.Krishna S/o late Madaiah Aged about 45 years
All are residing at 2579/1 New No.10/1, Kalidasa Road, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore – 2. …APPELLANTS
(By Smt.P.C.Vinitha, Advocate)
AND:
Mysore Urban Development Authority Jancy Lakshmibai Road, Mysore, By its Commissioner – 570 001. …RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition 21618/2012 dated 25.9.2012.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders this day, Ravi Malimath J., delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners
have filed the present appeal.
-
The husband of the appellant was allotted a site measuring 30/40 feet on 07.08.1991. Her contention is that she is entitled for a site measuring 60/40 feet. Hence, she made a representation to the respondent dated 01.12.2003 for allotment of a site measuring 60/40 feet. The same was not considered. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed.
-
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches, since the allotment was of the year 1991, the representation was on 01.12.2003 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2012.
-
On hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal, Even assuming that the appellant was entitled for allotment of a site measuring 60/40 feet, the same
3
should have been sought for within an appropriate period of time. Having waited up to the year 2012, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the appeal on delay. We do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
- Consequently, I.A.1/2013 filed seeking condonation of delay also stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE
JJ
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order