IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25391 OF 2025 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI JANARDHAN SWAMY S/O LATE SRI. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.705, 13^TH CROSS ROAD

32^ND MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR

1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

NOW RESIDING AT NO.46-P2-B, K.I.D.B. HARDWARE PARK, BANGALORE-562149.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by DEPARTMENT OF URBAN-DEVELOPMENT HEMALATHA A REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Location: HIGH 4^TH FLOOR, VEEKASH SOUDHA COURTOF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560020.

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

SRI.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BDA TO IMPLEMENT AND EFFECTUATE ORDER DATED 29.06.2021 PASSED BY THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE HEADED BY HONBLE JUSTICE SRI.D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

2. Sri C.Venkatesh, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.2.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The petitioner was allotted Site No.71, RVM II Stage, under ‘G’ Category (scheme). The allotment order was issued on 30.10.2009, and the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed on 06.11.2009. The entire sital value of the site was paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2-

Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA).

5. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in S.VASUDEVA vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ held that the allotments made under ‘G’ category (scheme) pursuant to the directions of the State Government were illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article

14 of the Constitution of India, with certain observations.

6. Pursuant to the said decision, the State Government constituted a committee headed by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.V.Shylendra Kumar known as D.V.Shylendra Kumar Committee (Committee) to examine the validity of such allotments and to make appropriate recommendations.

7. The petitioner was issued notice by the Committee and was afforded an opportunity to substantiate the validity of his allotment. The Committee, upon consideration of the material placed before it, by an order dated 29.06.2021 at Annexure-G, recommended that respondent No.2-BDA to confirm the allotment of the site W.P.No.23475/2010 and connected matters disposed on 25.08.2012 in favor of the petitioner and to complete all the necessary formalities.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the specific recommendations made by the Committee, respondent No.2-BDA has not taken any steps to act upon the recommendations or confirm the allotment of the site in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted a representation in this regard, which remains unconsidered.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner’s representation will be considered in accordance with law.

10. Having regard to the limited scope of reliefs sought in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's representation requires consideration by respondent No.2-authority, in accordance with law, taking into account the recommendations made by the Committee.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.2-BDA to consider the petitioner's representation and to pass appropriate orders, keeping in view the recommendations made by the Committee dated 29.06.2021, and to take a decision regarding the confirmation/allotment of the site in favor of the petitioner, in accor