Sri P R Chenna Redy Vs Bangalore Development Authority

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. KUMARA R.S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 1/24 AND IA 2/24; SRI. YADUNANDAN N., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 3/24)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BENAPRA.KA.PP.A(U)/493/2021-22 ISSUED BY DATED 16.09.2021 AT ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE PREPONDERANT TO ALLOT SITES THAT ARE BEING FORMED IN THE ARKAVATHY LAYOUT OR THE CORNER SITES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN ARKAVATHY LAYOUT AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking

¶28

for the following prayers:

¶29

“i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, or order or direction quashing the endorsement hearing No.BenAPra/Ka.Pp.A(U)/493/ 2021-22 issued by dated 16.09.2021 at Annexure-F.

¶30

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the Respondent to allot sites that are being formed in

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44347 WP No. 12134 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the Arkavathy Layout or the corner sites that are available in Arkavathy Layout;

¶34

iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the Respondent that in the event there being no sites available in the said Arkavathy Layout, in the alternative allot sites available in the parallelly developed layouts formed by the Respondent BDA which are adjacent to Arkavathy Layout.

¶35

iv) Issue such other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents-Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and perused the material on record.

¶37

The petitioners purchased the scheduled

¶38

property under a registered sale Deed dated 21.04.2018. The respondents-BDA had initiated acquisition proceedings for the formation of Arkavathy Layout under final notification dated 21.02.2004 and subsequently undertook

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44347 WP No. 12134 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

formation of the layout. The Government of Karnataka, by order dated 18.03.2011, extended a benefit to the land losers by providing re-conveyance of the 40% of the developed area in the said layout. The petitioners therefore submitted representation to the BDA for identification and allotment of their sites upon inaction by the BDA, they have approached this Court seeking consideration of their representation.

¶42

This Court in the case of Sri P.R. Chenna Reddy and Another Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others¹ (Sri P.R. Chenna Reddy) directed the BDA to consider the representation pursuant thereto, the BDA issued the impugned endorsement dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure-F) stating that due to encumbrances and litigations concerning the sites, the same could not be allotted. Instead, the BDA proposed to compensate the petitioner under the incentive scheme by offering them alternative sites in “Nadaprabhu

¶43

1 W.P.No.12086/2021 D.D.15.04.2021

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44347 WP No. 12134 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Kempegowda Layout”. The endorsement dated

¶47

16.09.2021, proposing to allot sites to the petitioner with the following dimensions:

¶48

“ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ PÉÆÃµÀ×PÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄAvÉ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁªÉ¬ÄgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt §qÁªÀuÉ gÀa¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è EzÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ®¨sÀå«®èzÀ PÁgÀt vÀªÀÄUÉ §zÀ° ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃQgÀÄªÀ «¹ÛÃtðªÀÅ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶49

²æÃ.¦.Dgï.ZÀ£ÀßgÉrØ

¶50

9 x 12 – 10 ¸ÀASÉå

¶51

9 x 12 = 108.00 ZÀ.«ÄÃ 108.00 x 10.764 = 1162.1525 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ-1162.15 x 10 = 11,621.50 ZÀ.Cr

¶52

12 x 18 – 6 ¸ÀASÉå 12 x 18 = 216.00 ZÀ.«ÄÃ 216.00 x 10.764 = 2325.02 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ-2325.02 x 6 = 13,950.14 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ «¹ÛÃtð = 25,571.64 ZÀ.Cr

¶53

²æÃ.«. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï

¶54

9 x 12 – 5 ¸ÀASÉå 9 x 12 = 108.00 ZÀ.«ÄÃ 108.00 x 10.764 = 1162.1525 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ-1162.15 x 5 = 5810.75 ZÀ.Cr 12 x 18 – 5 ¸ÀASÉå 12 x 18 = 216.00 ZÀ.«ÄÃ 216.00 x 10.764 = 2325.02 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ-2325.02 x 5 = 11,625.10 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ «¹ÛÃtð = 17,435.85 ZÀ.Cr MlÄÖ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ «¹ÛÃtð = 43,007.49 ZÀ.Cr”

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44347 WP No. 12134 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶58

the sites originally sought in the Arkavathy Layout are unavailable and the petitioners are agreeable to accept the alternative sites as proposed in the endorsement dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure–F), and therefore, prayed that suitable directions issued to the BDA to allot the said sites.

¶59

The submission is placed on recorded.

¶60

The learned counsel for the respondents–BDA

¶61

submits that the allotment of alternative sites mentioned in Annexure–F dated 16.09.2021 will be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

¶62

In view of the submissions made, this Court

¶63

deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to allot alternative site in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout and this Court pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44347 WP No. 12134 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to allot litigation free alternative sites in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout as indicated in Annexure-F stated supra, after following requisites formalities, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶71

AT

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri P R Chenna Redy v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P R Chenna Redy v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.T. Govindaraju Vs the Managing Director

Sri Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Adv. Manjunatha G Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B S Ramadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shankar Kheni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Prakash Vs State of Karnataka