Allowed¶41

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri Gangadhara

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2025WA/1990/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition filed through GPA holder; GPA disowned by memo dated 25.01.2019 of Gangadhara; two petitioners deceased prior to filing; PCR against K.L. Swamy for creating GPA and forging signatures; BDA land in Sy.No.34/3A and Sy.No.34/3, Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk; appeal under S. 4 Karnataka High Court Act allowed; single Judge's order dated 21.11.2013 in WP 36557-36559/2013 set aside; writ petition dismissed. Neutral citation: 2025:KHC:30440-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 21.11.2013 of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 36557-36559/2013 set aside; writ petition dismissed; all pending applications disposed of. ¶41

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri Gangadhara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 21.11.2013 of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 36557-36559/2013 set aside; writ petition dismissed; all pending applications disposed of.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition (W.P. Nos. 36557-36559/2013) filed through K.L. Swamy as purported GPA holder was maintainable, given the memo stating that no GPA was executed in his favour and that two of the petitioners had died before filing.

¶39

Court's answer

Since the writ petition itself could not have been maintained (no GPA executed in favour of K.L. Swamy who filed it, and two petitioner-respondents had died prior to filing), the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The order of the learned Judge dated 21.11.2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 36557-36559/2013 is set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed; all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶45-47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bangalore Development Authority v. Gangadhara & Ors., Writ Appeal No. 1990 of 2015 (LA-BDA) (High Court of Karnataka, DB: Jayant Banerji & Umesh M Adiga, JJ., per Banerji, J.), decided 06.08.2025. The appeal under S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act challenged the single Judge's order dated 21.11.2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 36557-36559/2013 concerning Sy.No.34/3A (3 acres) and Sy.No.34/3 (6 acres) of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The writ petition had been filed by K.L. Swamy claiming to act as GPA holder of respondents 1-3. On a memo dated 25.01.2019 filed by Gangadhara stating that no GPA was executed in favour of K.L. Swamy, that two petitioner-respondents had died before filing, and that a PCR was lodged against K.L. Swamy for creating the GPA and forging signatures, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 conceded and stood down. Holding that the writ petition itself could not have been maintained, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 21.11.2013, dismissed the writ petition, and disposed of pending applications.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30440-DB WA No. 1990 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1990 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE -560 020.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI. GANGADHARA S/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶17

SRI. S MOHAN S/O SRI SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶18

SMT. MUNISIDDAMMA W/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶19

ALL ARE R/O KONANKUNTE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:30440-DB WA No. 1990 of 2015

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SRI. K. L. SWAMY S/O LATE SRI K. LAKSHMANASA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.9, SESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE 560 009.

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.B.V. RAMAMOORTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3, SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 36557-36559/2013 DATED 21/11/2013.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶30

and

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed for

¶35

perusal of the Court a memo dated 25.01.2019 filed by the petitioner-respondent No.1 - Gangadhara, that neither he

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30440-DB WA No. 1990 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

nor the other petitioner - respondents had executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of K.L.Swamy, who filed Writ Petition Nos.36557-36559/2013 against BDA in respect

¶39

of Sy.No.34/3A, measuring 3 acres and Sy.No.34/3 measuring 6 acres of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is further stated that two of the petitioners-respondents had died even prior to filing of the writ petition and that the aforesaid Gangadhara had filed PCR against K.L. Swamy for creating GPA and also for forging signatures of Gangadhara, his father, mother and his brother. It is stated that Writ Petition was incurably defective and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

¶40

Sri. Satish K, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 who is present, has, in all fairness, conceded that given the contents of the memo, he would stand down.

¶41

Under the circumstances, since the writ petition itself could not have been maintained, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed .

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:30440-DB WA No. 1990 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45