SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. Hemalekha, J.
Smt. Manjula .J, W/O Late J.C. Jagadeesha - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee - Respondent
Writ Petition No.26287 of 2025 (LA-BDA)
Decided On : 15-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Raghunandan K.S., Advocate For Smt. Vachana N.V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Vasanth, Advocate

The court directed the BDA to expedite the allotment process for land sites in accordance with previous rulings, ensuring timely responses to all representations.

Headnote:(A) Bangalore Development Authority Act - Various Writ Petitions and Directions Pertaining to Allotment of Sites - The court upheld the acquisition of lands for Arkavathi Layout while directing the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to expedite the allotment process and consider claims effectively by the constituted committee, ensuring compliance with prior judgments. (Paras 1, 2, and 22)

(B) Writ of Mandamus - The court issued directions to the BDA to conclude the allotment process promptly and handle representations from affected parties under established guidelines. (Paras 1, 14, and 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a widow of a deceased allottee, contested against the non-consideration of her representation regarding site BK90's allotment, originally intended for her husband. The court reiterated the need for timely resolution of claims made by land allottees in light of prior rulings.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the BDA must act swiftly and fairly regarding all pending representations and ensure compliance with previous court mandates regarding site allotments.

Issues: The primary issues involved the prompt consideration of allotment claims by the BDA and the procedural fairness in processing applications under judicial scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that all claims and representations should be processed in compliance with past judgments and existing BDA regulations, stressing the urgency of resolving allotment disputes.

Result: Writ petition disposed of, granting permission for additional documents to support the representation and mandating prompt consideration by the committee.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's representation is to be considered. (Para 1)
2. counsel submissions acknowledging representation considerations. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's order granting liberty to submit documents. (Para 4)
4. writ petition disposed with instructions for the committee. (Para 5)

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the the non-consideration of her representation dated 14.06.2025 (Annexure-K) sent through post to the committee headed by Hon’ble Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, constituted to consider the issues regarding allotment and deletion of lands acquired for formation of Arkavathi Layout by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), pursuant to the directions issued in the case of K.P. Anjanappa Vs. State of Karnataka and others , W.P. No.51929/2014 & Con. Matters D.D. 27.09.2021 (K.P. Anjanappa) with the following directions:

ORDER

(i) The challenge made to the Notifications Nos. BDA/COMMR, KLAO/LA9/104/2002-03, BANGALORE, dated: 03.02.2003, No. UDD 193 MNX 2004, BANGALORE, dated: 23.02.2004 and No. UDD 426 MNJ/2011, BANGALORE, dated 18.06.2014, stands rejected and acquisition of the lands for the formation of Arkavati Layout is upheld.

(ii) W.P.No.*815/2017* is allowed and writ of mandamus issues to the BDA – respondent No.1 to conclude the allotment process of site No.BK90, Arkavati Layout, expeditiously, at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the alternate, if site BK90 is not available BDA shall allot alternate site and execute Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of the petitioner, issue Possession Certificate and deliver vacant possession of site so allotted, expeditiously and at any rate within 30 days from the date of issuing the endorsement to the petitioner that site bearing No.BK90 not being available. It is also made clear that within 7 days from the date of this order, BDA shall intimate petitioner as to whether site No.BK90 allotted to him on 31.05.2016, is available or not.

(iii) W.P.Nos.47461/2016 & 48412-14/2016 are hereby dismissed.

(iv) W.P.No.21361/2017 is allowed and writ of mandamus issues to BDA directing the said Authority to execute absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

(v) W.P.No.751/2016 is allowed and writ of mandamus issues to the BDA to allot a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in favour of petitioner expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

(vi) W.P.Nos.3178/2017 c/w 55737/2016, 10923/2015, 58734/2016, 15588/2017, 14868/2017, 30485/2017 & 59317/2016 and similarly placed writ petitions stands disposed of by directing the BDA to place the representations of all the applicants/petitioners submitted for allotment of sites for being considered by the Committee constituted hereinabove. It is also made clear that all such applications which have been filed for allotment of sites under any of the categories specified in the order of the Division Bench or the Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY’s case shall be considered by the Committee keeping in mind the directions issued thereunder and subject to order passed at paragraph (xiv) hereinbelow.

(vii) W.P.No.43194/2017 is hereby allowed in part and a writ of mandamus issues to the BDA to allot one (1) site in favour of the petitioner, the measurement of which shall be same as indicated in the Lease cum Sale Agreement executed in favour of petitioner by BDA on 28.02.2007.

(viii) W.P.Nos.38463/2014, 19783-784/2018, 46766/2014, 47606/2014 & 48579/2014, stands dismissed.

(ix) W.P.No.1876/2016 stands disposed of and BDA is directed to place the representation of the petitioner, who is a revenue site holder and all similar representations/applications of the revenue site holders before the Committee for examining their claims in the background of Division Bench judgment as affirmed by Apex Court in BOND

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top