##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54752

WP No. 19065 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO.19065 OF 2025 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI B.N. GOPINATH

S/O. LATE B.V. NARASIMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

R/AT NO.101, 4^TH CROSS,

SYNDICATE BANK COLONY,

ARAKERE, B.G. ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 076.

2. SRI B.L. DILIP

S/O. LATE B.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

R/AT NO.27, 1^ST CROSS,

B.G. ROAD, MANJUNATH LAYOUT,

BENGALURU-560076.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI BHAT GANAPATHI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M

Location: HIGH AND:

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

THE COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

KUMAR PARK (WEST),

BENGALURU-560 020.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE

RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION

DATED 05.05.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54752

WP No. 19065 of 2025

HC-KAR

RESPONDENT AUTHORITY, AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ALLOT THE

ALTERNATIVE SITE IN THE SAME LAYOUT WITHIN TIME FRAME

PERIOD.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY

APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a

writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Bengaluru

Development Authority (BDA) to consider the

representation dated 05.05.2025 and to allot an

alternative site in lieu of BDA site No.1571, situated at

BTM 4^th Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru, which has become

unavailable to them on account of subsequent judicial

proceedings declaring the acquisition itself as lapsed.

Brief facts:

2. The material facts as borne out from the

pleadings are not in serious dispute. The schedule site

No.1571 was originally allotted by the respondent-BDA in

the year 2016 in favour of the petitioner’s vendor, who

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54752

WP No. 19065 of 2025

HC-KAR

was a land loser. Pursuant thereto, the BDA executed a

registered sale deed in favour of the said allottee on

05.06.2017 and also a possession certificate on

06.06.2017.

3. The petitioners, after verifying the allotment

letter, registered the sale deed and possession certificate

issued by the respondent-BDA, purchased the schedule

site under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2018.

Thereafter, katha was transferred in their favour and they

were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule

property.

4. Subsequently, certain original landowners filed

writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings

initiated by respondent-BDA. By order dated 24.09.2019

passed in W.P.No.41386-395/2017, this Court held that

the final notification issued under Section 19(1) of the

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for

short) stood lapsed.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54752

WP No. 19065 of 2025

HC-KAR

5. As the consequence of the said order, the land

including the schedule site reverted to the original

landowners, rendering the site purchased by the

petitioners unavailable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend

that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers, and that

upon enquiry, the respondent-BDA has acknowledged that

the schedule site is no longer available and assured the

petitioners that an alternative site would be allotted in the

same layout.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

contend that during the pendency of the writ petition, the

petitioners have ascertained that Site No.1217, measuring

30x40 feet situated at BTM 4^th Stage, 2^nd Block (BDA

layout), Bengaluru is available and free from

encumbrance. It is submitted that the petitioners have

obtained an encumbrance certificate in this regard and

apprehend that the said site may be allotted to a third

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54752

WP No. 19065 of 2025

HC-KAR

parties, thereby frustrating their pending representation

seeking allotment of an alternative site.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document