IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 30778 OF 2025 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O.SRI.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.89, ALASAHALLI, THIPPASANDRA, ANEKAL, BENGALURU- 562 125. 2. SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O.RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, INDABELE, ATTHIBELE CIRCLE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU- 562 125.

3. SMT.RAMAMANI.T.M, W/O.SRI.MUNIYAPPA, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MAHALAKSHMI B M R/AT NO.8, ALASAHALLI, Location: HIGH COURT OF THIPPASANDRA COLONY, KARNATAKA HIGH SCHOOL CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 087.

4. SMT.SAMPANGI, W/O.SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.89, ALASAHALLI, THIPPASANDRA COLONY, ANEKAL, BENGALURU- 560 087.

5. SMT.SEEMA AHMAD, W/O.SRI.GOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, THIMMAIAH ROAD, CROSS, NEHRU PURAM, BENGALURU GPO-560001.

6. SRI.L.K.JANARDHANAIAH, S/O.KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.796, 13TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU- 560 076.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKARA Y D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, 4^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU- 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020.

3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-1, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.BDA/COMMISSIONER/DS-1-5126/2015-16, DATED 16.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, BDA AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have called in question the endorsement dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure-M) issued by respondent No.3, wherein respondent No.3 has called upon the 98 beneficiaries to furnish residential proof/documents for consideration of their request. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider their representation dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure-T) for allotment of sites measuring 20x30, in terms of the joint inspection report of the Revenue Officers (Annexures-D to J) and the inspection report of the Inspector, STF, Bengaluru Development Authority (for short 'BDA') vide Annexure-L.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were residing at Srinivagilu, Koramangala slum area, Bengaluru and were displaced by the BDA without being provided rehabilitation. It is stated that pursuant to the representation submitted by the State Convenor of Karnataka Dalitha Kriya Action Committee, the BDA decided to allot sites measuring 20X30 to 237 families, however, only 118 sites were actually allotted. The remaining 98 beneficiaries including the petitioners continue to await allotment. It is further contended that the action of respondent No.3-BDA, calling upon the petitioners to produce the documents is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the inspection reports identify them as beneficiaries.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3-BDA submits that the petitioners have not produced even a single document to establish their residence at Srinivagilu, Koramangala slum area, Bengaluru. It is submitted that, if the petitioners produce any documents evidencing their residence and entitlement, the same will be duly considered. In the absence of such proof, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

4. Upon perusal of entire material on record, it is clear that the petitioners have not placed any document to substantiate their residence in the area from which the claim displacement. In the absence of such supporting material, this Court cannot issue a direction compellin