IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (GIDADA KONENAHALLI INCHARGE)

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VACHAN B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

J. RAMESH S/O. JAYARAMAN, C/O. S. R. SUBBARAYULU, NO. 6, 6TH MAIN, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA NORTH, BENGALURU-560 079.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH A.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 4180/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 29.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4180/2017 (LA-BDA) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’).

2. By the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the appellants/Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’) to execute registered sale deed for Site No.973, I Block, Sir.M.Vishwesharaiah Layout, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Site No.973’) after receipt of a sum of Rs.3,48,754/- and also register a sale deed for the adjacent 33.75 sq. ft. of land as per the guidance value of the Sub-Registrar.

3. Since the directions were not complied with, the complainant has filed a Contempt of Court Case being CCC No.234/2022.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants / BDA and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had been granted a site bearing No.973, I Block, Sri. M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bengaluru. Since this site was not allocated and the Sale Deed was not executed, W.P.Nos.4343-4344/2009(LA-BDA)¹ (hereinafter referred

1 J.Ramesh & Another vs. The Commissioner, BDA & Another

to as the ‘1^st Writ Petition’) was filed by the respondent along with one Sri. S. Srinivasan.

5.1 The learned Single Judge of this Court, by its Order dated 12.03.2009, directed the BDA to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as the said Sri. S. Srinivasan, within three months. Since this was not undertaken by the BDA, a second writ petition was filed being W.P.No.4180/2017, J.Ramesh vs. The Commissioner, BDA & Another (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2^nd Writ Petition’).

5.2 It was also the contention of the respondent/ complainant that during this period, although the said Sri.S. Srinivasan was allocated a site as well as the Sale Deed was executed in his favour on 23.05.2012, so far as the respondent was concerned, the compliance was not done.

5.3 During the proceedings before the learned Single Judge in 2^nd Writ Petition, an affidavit was filed by

appellants/ BDA dated 29.03.2021, wherein the BDA had stated that the allotted site No.973 to the respondent was marginally in excess by 33.75 square meters and thus, the value of the cited land would be required to be paid.

Paragraph 4 of this affidavit is set out as below:-

"4. It is submitted that authority already allotted the site No.973 to the petitioner and subject to payment of market value towards marginal sital area in lieu of his revenue site acquired by the authority and if the petitioner pay the cost for sital value plus excess measurement area cost at the correct market value demanded by the authority, authority will execute the sale deed without further delay in favour of the petitioner herein......"

[Emphasis Supplied]

6. It is based on this Affidavit, the