IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 31098 OF 2025 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

THE BANGALORE CITY JETTY COMMUNITY AND SREE NIMBAJA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST, REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-

SRI. JAGANNATH A JETTY, S/O B.ANANTHAPADMANABHA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.94, 4^TH FLOOR, B.V.K. IYENGAR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 053.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W ASHWIN KUMAR.M, PARIKSHITH MALIYE AND PANCHAMI MAHALE, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT, 5TH MAIN RD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020.

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

SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BDA TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08-06-2020 FOR THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED OR EXCHANGE DEED WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF C.A. SITE FORMED IN SY.NO.40 OF MARENAHALLY BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) 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 petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to consider the representation dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-A) for execution of a sale deed or an exchange deed in respect of Civic Amenity (for short 'CA') Site formed in Survey No.40 of Marenahally, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri.Rajesh Mahale, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Senior counsel submits that the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (for short "CITB") now BDA had acquired Municipal Nos.216, 217 and 218 for the purpose of road widening under a Gazette notification dated 21.09.1961. In lieu of such acquisition, the petitioner was allotted the schedule CA site in Survey No.40. A supplemental deed dated 18.08.2010 was executed, granting a lease for 30 years. The petitioner had earlier instituted a suit in OS.No.3566/1993 for perpetual injunction against Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP'), which came to be decreed and later confirmed in RFA No.483/2009.

4. A third party Sri.Jagadish filed a Public Interest Litigation (for short 'PIL') titled as K.JAGADISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, WP.No.50222/2012 (BDA-PIL), D.D.06.08.2015 (K.JAGADISH ), wherein he contended that the schedule property is in the nature of a commercial land. This Court categorically held that the schedule land was neither a playground nor a park nor a civic amenity site, but was in the nature of commercial land. Consequently, the PIL was dismissed. Relying on these findings, learned Senior counsel contends that petitioner is entitled to re-conveyance of the property in terms of Rule 10-A of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) (Amendment)

Rules, 2020 (for short 'the BDA Rules, 2020').

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

BDA submits that the property in question is shown in revenue records as 'Government Tank Bed', the maintenance of which vests with BBMP. It is submitted that BBMP has been in lawful possession overtime and that the property stands de-notified. He further submits that allotment of a CA site must necessarily follow the statutory procedure prescribed under the BDA Act. However, without prejudice, it is stated that if the petitioner seeks allotment of an alternative CA site from the available list (annexed to the statement of objections), the BDA