IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 9629 OF 2025 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. TARUN. L, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LABURAM, NO.50, 1ST MAIN, HUCCHAPPA LANE, SVG NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA CIRCLE, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE- 560 072 2. SMT SANGEETHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O SRI. TARUN. L, NO.50, 1ST MAIN, HUCCHAPPA LANE SVG NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA CIRCLE, Digitally signed by NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE- 560 072.

MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF …PETITIONERS KARNATAKA (BY SRI. UMESH B N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P WEST, BENGALURU- 560 020

2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P WEST, BENGALURU- 560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTHA., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION DEED DATED 18/07/2016, VIDE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. BDA-1-01318/2016-17, CD NO. BDAD220, DATED 19/07/2016, BOOK NO. I, IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR (BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, EXECUTED BY THE R2 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE AT ANNX-A, AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NULL AND VOID AB-

INITIO.

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

Sri. Vasantha, learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned cancellation deed dated 18.07.2016, registered on 19.07.2016 before the Additional District Sub Registrar (Bengaluru Development Authority) Bengaluru Urban District, executed by respondent No.2 in respect of the land bearing site No.913/A situated at Banashankari 6^th stage, BDA Layout, 11^th Block measuring 9 X 12 meter (herein after referred as 'schedule property' for brevity) in favour of the vendor of the petitioners.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The said property was originally acquired by the BDA from the petitioners' vendor - Smt. B.R.Sunanda, bearing Khata No.226/311, for formation of Sir. M.Vishveshwaraiah Layout. In lieu of the acquisition, the BDA allotted an alternative site bearing No.913x1 situated at Banashankari

6^th stage, 11^th Block, Bengaluru measuring 9 X 12 meter and executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of Smt. B.R.Sunanda. Possession Certificate was issued and Katha was transferred in her name. Subsequently, on 30.07.2015, the said Smt. B.R.Sunanda executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners got the katha transferred in their name and are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-BDA has unilaterally, without notice either to the petitioners or to their vendor cancelled the Sale Deed dated 27.07.2015 executed in favour of the petitioners' vendor. He submits that such unilateral cancellation is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.C.PADMANABHAN Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY¹, wherein it has been held that a deed of Sale duly executed and registered cannot be nullified by execution of a unilateral deed of cancellation by the vendor.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the BDA has unilaterally executed the deed of Cancellation dated 27.07.2015, and submits that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision in R.C.PADMANABHAN's case (supra).

7. From the materials on record, it is clear that the BDA had allotted the schedule property to the vendor o