IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2023 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S 1. MR. JOSEPH RAJ Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O SHANTAPPA KARNATAKA R/A NO.69, 3^RD FLOOR, NANDI WEST PLOT NO.301, 4^TH BLOCK, 4^TH STAGE BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 079

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE J C ROAD, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. REENA R, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2, SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE IN WP BEARING No-8204/2019 AND ALLOW THIS WA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant-

Bengaluru Development Authority (for brevity "BDA") challenging the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8204/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed appellant-BDA to fructify the allotment of site in favour of respondent i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition by executing and registering a regular conveyance within a period of eight weeks from the date of said order.

2. The facts of the case are that one Sri. M.

Nanjappa was issued with a Possession Certificate dated 21.09.1978 in respect of Site No.262, Block 3, West of Chord Road, 4^th Stage, measuring East to West 9.14 meters and North to South 12.2 meters by the then CITB. Thereafter, the said M. Nanjappa has executed an Agreement for Sale dated 09.07.1994, with respondent No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.1 has filed OS.No.6825/2011 for specific performance of contract solely on the basis of Agreement for Sale dated 09.07.1994. The said M. Nanjappa was placed exparte and the suit came to be decreed on 10.11.2014, wherein M. Nanjappa was directed to execute a Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.1 herein within a period of 60 days from the date of said order.

3. Later, in the Execution Petition No.137/2015 filed by respondent No.1 herein, the Executing Court ordered for execution of Sale Deed. Accordingly the Court Sale Deed was executed on 30.08.2017.

4. Subsequently the respondent No.1 herein has filed WP.No.8204/2019, against appellant/BDA to take cognizance of the Sale Deed dated 30.08.2017/execute absolute Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.1 and to direct the BBMP to take note of such Sale Deed. The learned Single Judge of this court allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 17.03.2023.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-BDA has filed instant appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.

Karthikeyan B.S., for the appellant-BDA, the learned counsel Smt. Reena. R., for the respondent No.1, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel Sri. B.L. Sanjeev., for respondent No.3.

7. The primary contention of learned counsel for the appellant\BDA is that the BDA has neither issued any possession certificate as claimed by M. Nanjappa on 21.09.1978, nor any Lease-cum-Sale Deed was executed in his favour. In such circumstance, said Nanjappa has no valid title in respect of the property in question to execute Agreement for Sale in favour of respondent No. 1.

8. Further, it is contended that though the appellant-BDA was necessary and proper party t