Dismissed¶43

Sri.B. Devendra v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025WA/547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA site allotment cancelled for non-disclosure of mother's earlier Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) allotment; Rule 10(3) BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984 family-member embargo; clause 21 disclosure in allotment application; writ appeal against Single Judge dismissal upheld; writ petition dismissed; refund direction to be processed by BDA in accordance with law; Karnataka High Court Division Bench; WA No. 547 of 2024 (BDA); decided 02.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the appellant; the learned Single Judge's direction for refund is to be processed by the respondent-BDA in accordance with law. ¶43

Sri.B. Devendra Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the appellant; the learned Single Judge's direction for refund is to be processed by the respondent-BDA in accordance with law.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the specific embargo in Rule 10(3) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and the disclosure sought under clause 21 of the application for allotment of sites, the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the BDA's cancellation of the appellant's site allotment for non-disclosure of his mother's earlier KHB allotment.

¶42

Court's answer

In view of the specific embargo contained in Rule 10(3) of the 1984 Rules and the specific information sought under clause 21 of the application for allotment of sites, there is no error in the findings of the learned Single Judge.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed.

¶43

Key takeaways

The direction issued by the learned Single Judge for refund shall be processed by the respondent-BDA in accordance with law.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (BDA), High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman J., author; Rajesh Rai K. J.), decided 02.09.2025: The Division Bench considered the appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 05.09.2023 in W.P.No.9625/2019 dismissing the appellant's challenge to the BDA's cancellation of his site allotment. Background as submitted: the appellant's mother was allotted a KHB site on 15.11.1978, which was sold on 27.04.2001 owing to her illness; the BDA processed the appellant's application by communication dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure-F) and received the balance amount with interest, but later cancelled the allotment because the mother's earlier KHB allotment had not been disclosed. Holding: in view of the specific embargo in Rule 10(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and the specific information sought under clause 21 of the application for allotment of sites, there is no error in the learned Single Judge's findings; the writ petition fails and is dismissed, while the Single Judge's direction for refund shall be processed by the respondent-BDA in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34411-DB WA No. 547 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. B. DEVENDRA S/O SRI. BILIGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT No.118 3^RD FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS ROAD GOVINAYAKANAHALLI, 2^ND STAGE KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 078

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WP No.9625/2019 (BDA) DATED 05.09.2023 BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:34411-DB WA No. 547 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

appellant.

¶28

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.09.2023 in

¶29

W.P.No.9625/2019.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that earlier, a site has been allotted in favour of appellant's mother Smt. Sarojamma by the Karnataka Housing Board ('KHB' for short) on 15.11.1978. However, appellant's mother was suffering

¶31

from cancer and the said site had to be sold on 27.04.2001. Thereafter, applications were made for allotment of site to the Bangalore Development Authority

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34411-DB WA No. 547 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

('BDA' for short) and the BDA had issued a communication dated 26.08.2008 produced as Annexure-F in terms of which, appellant's application was processed and he was called upon to pay the balance unpaid amount with interest, which was also paid. It is submitted that thereafter, allotment was cancelled on the ground that the fact that the appellant's mother had been allotted a site by the KHB earlier was not disclosed in the application preferred by the appellant.

¶35

The learned Single Judge having considered the specific queries in the application as well as the provisions

¶36

of Rule 10(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (the '1984 Rules' for short) held that there was a clear embargo against allotment of sites to persons, members of whose family have already been allotted sites either by BDA, KHB or any other similar Authority including Co-operative Societies. It was found that the appellant had never disclosed the fact

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:34411-DB WA No. 547 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

that his mother had been allotted a site that had already

¶41

been sold.

¶42

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the specific embargo contained in Rule 10(3) of the 1984 Rules as well as the specific information sought under clause 21 of the application for allotment of sites, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the

¶43

findings of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition therefore fails, same is accordingly dismissed . The direction issued by the learned Single Judge for refund shall be processed by the respondent-BDA in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri.B. Devendra v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B. Devendra v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B N Shivaprakash Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

A S Venkatesh Vs M Devendra

Sri Bhadra Reddy Vs M/S Sri Vinayaka Infra

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sachita R Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Ashoka Vs Neelamma