IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO.63757/2016(BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI.SADIQ GAIHLOT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

S/O. SRI.ABDUL REHMAN GAIHLOT

RESIDING AT NO.22/11

2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN

7^TH CROSS, S.K.GARDEN

BENSON TOWN

BANGALORE-560 046.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.R.VISWANATH, ADV.)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD

KUMARA PARK WEST

BENGALURU-560 020.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

RESPONDENT TO GRANT AN ALTERNATE SITE IN LIEU OF 3.5

GUNTAS OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.171/4 SITUATED AT

2

KOTHANUR

VILLAGE,

UTTARAHALLI

HOBLI,

BANGALORE

SOUTH TALUK.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus

directing the respondent to grant an alternate site in lieu of

3.5 guntas of land utilized by the respondent-Bangalore

Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) in Sy.No.171/4

of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

2.

Heard Sri.B.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent-BDA.

3.

Petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of

converted land bearing Sy.No.171/4 of Kothanur village,

Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is stated that the

land was converted for non-agricultural residential purpose

vide Official Memorandum dated 17.01.2013 issued by the

3

Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. It is

the case of the petitioner that without notice and without any

acquisition proceedings, the respondent-BDA formed road

utilizing 3.5 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner in

Sy.No.171/4. No compensation was awarded to the petitioner

nor any alternate land was granted for utilizing the above said

land for the purpose of formation of road. At the time of

utilization of the petitioner’s land by the respondent-BDA, the

petitioner was assured that he would be adequately

compensated or he would be allotted alternate developed

land. As the respondent-BDA failed to compensate the

petitioner, he made a representation at Annexure-F dated

11.04.2016 to the respondent-Commissioner.

4.

The respondent-BDA contests the writ petition by filing

objections. In the objection statement, BDA admits the

utilization of land in Sy.No.171/4 of Kothanur Village. It is

also admitted that the representation of the petitioner is

under consideration and the respondent-Authority would take

4

appropriate steps for allotment of alternate land to the

petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondent-BDA that the petitioner would be entitled for

compensation for the land utilized by the respondent-BDA or

to seek for developed land in lieu of compensation. He would

also submit that the contention of the petitioner that he

would be entitled for 100% developed land equivalent to the

land utilized by the respondent-BDA has no basis.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the

petitioner would be entitled for a writ of mandamus directing

the respondent to consider Annexure-F representation dated

11.04.2016 and pass appropriate orders. It is not in dispute

that the respondent-BDA has utilized the land of the

petitioner in Sy.No.171/4 of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli

Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for formation of road. It is also

not in dispute in view of the statement made by the

respondent-BDA that the representation of the petitioner is

5

und