Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt.Suchetha K.C. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Smt.Suchetha K.C. Vs the State of KarnatakaSmt.Suchetha K.C. v. the State of Karnataka

Disposed¶31

Smt.Suchetha K.C. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2025WP/13658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice N S Sanjay Gowda; W.P. No. 13658 of 2022 (LA-BDA), decided 17.01.2025; writ petition under Articles 226/227 against BDA endorsement dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure-M) denying alternative site for 5 guntas taken for park formation; BDA affidavit admitted the extent (Sy.No.41/1, now Sy.No.41/6) was unutilized, demarcated and vacant; Court held owner entitled to utilize land not acquired according to law; direction for pathway access through BDA park and affidavit of unhindered access within one week; petition disposed of; keywords: BDA, alternative site, land acquisition, 5 guntas, Sy.No.41/6, park, right of access, endorsement, writ disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared entitled to utilize her 5 guntas of land (not acquired in the manner known to law); she shall have access thereto through the pathway in the park as undertaken by the Commissioner, BDA; the concerned BDA official to file an affidavit within one week indicating the pathway and affirming unhindered right of access.

Why is it important?

In light of the BDA's affidavit that the petitioner's 5 guntas of land was neither acquired in the manner known to law nor utilized, the petitioner is entitled to utilize that extent of land owned by her. ¶28

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner declared entitled to utilize her 5 guntas of land (not acquired in the manner known to law); she shall have access thereto through the pathway in the park as undertaken by the Commissioner, BDA; the concerned BDA official to file an affidavit within one week indicating the pathway and affirming unhindered right of access.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to utilize her land measuring 5 guntas (formerly Sy.No.41/1, presently Sy.No.41/6), which has not been acquired in the manner known to law, notwithstanding the BDA endorsement dated 08.10.2020 refusing allotment of an alternative site.

Court's answer

In light of the BDA's affidavit that the petitioner's 5 guntas of land was neither acquired in the manner known to law nor utilized, the petitioner is entitled to utilize that extent of land owned by her.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall, as undertaken by the Commissioner, BDA, have access to the 5 guntas through the pathway in the park, and the concerned BDA official shall file an affidavit within one week indicating the pathway and confirming the petitioner's unhindered right of access through it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - BDA endorsement dated 08.10.2020 refusing alternative site in respect of petitioner's 5 guntas utilized for park formation - during pendency, BDA affidavit disclosed that the extent (formerly Sy.No.41/1, presently Sy.No.41/6) was never utilized, stands demarcated, is vacant land and forms no part of the park developed by BDA - since the land was not acquired in the manner known to law, petitioner held entitled to utilize her own 5 guntas - access to be given through the pathway in the park as undertaken by Commissioner, BDA - BDA official directed to file affidavit within one week indicating the pathway and confirming unhindered right of access - writ petition disposed of.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1998 WP No. 13658 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 13658 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SMT.SUCHETHA K.C. W/O SHANKARE GOWDA S K, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO 140, 2^ND BLOCK, U K FARM, SIR M V NAGARA, CHIKKANAHALLI, SULIKERE POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK, BENGALURU 560060

(NOTE SENIOR CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLAIMED)

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020, REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. AJAY KUMAR.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1998 WP No. 13658 of 2022

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 08.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE R2, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

This petition was filed seeking quashing of endorsement dated 08.10.2020 issued by the BDA stating that the petitioner would not be entitled to allotment of an alternative site in respect of 5 guntas of his land which had been utilized for the purpose of formation of a park.

During the pendency of this petition, submissions had been made on behalf of BDA that the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site was under active consideration and that alternative site would be handed over to the petitioner. However, thereafter, the BDA has filed an affidavit stating that as a matter of fact, the land of the petitioner

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1998 WP No. 13658 of 2022

measuring 5 guntas which was formerly in Sy.No.41/1 and presently in Sy.No.41/6 has not been utilized. A sketch is also produced indicating that 5 guntas of land has not been utilized and the said extent is also demarcated.

The BDA has also stated that it has not utilized the land for any purpose and in the affidavit of the Commissioner at paragraph 6, it is stated that the land of the petitioner is a vacant land and it is not a part of the park developed by the BDA. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner would have access to this extent of 5 guntas from the pathway made in the said park.

In light of the above affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner would be entitled to utilize the extent of 5 guntas which is owned by her, since the same has not been acquired in the manner known to law. The petitioner shall, as undertaken by the Commissioner, BDA, have access to this extent of 5 guntas of land

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1998 WP No. 13658 of 2022

through the pathway in the park. The concerned official of the BDA shall file an affidavit within a period of one week indicating the pathway and also state in the affidavit that the petitioner would have unhindered right of access to his property through the pathway that would be indicated in the sketch along with the affidavit of the BDA.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to utilize her land measuring 5 guntas (formerly Sy.No.41/1, presently Sy.No.41/6), which has not been acquired in the manner known to law, notwithstanding the BDA endorsement dated 08.10.2020 refusing allotment of an alternative site.medium confidence¶28
The court held
In light of the BDA's affidavit that the petitioner's 5 guntas of land was neither acquired in the manner known to law nor utilized, the petitioner is entitled to utilize that extent of land owned by her.ratio¶28

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 and Article 227¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement dated 08.10.2020 issued by the BDA (Annexure-M) stating that the petitioner would not be entitled to allotment of an alternative site in respect of 5 guntas of her land utilized for formation of a park.¶22
Bangalore Development Authority (R-2) · 08.10.2020
Prior proceeding
Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement dated 08.10.2020 vide Annexure-M issued by R-2.¶18
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the petition, BDA submitted that the petitioner's request for allotment of an alternative site was under active consideration and would be handed over.¶23
Prior proceeding
BDA filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner's land measuring 5 guntas, formerly in Sy.No.41/1 and presently in Sy.No.41/6, had not been utilized and was demarcated.¶26
Prior proceeding
Affidavit of the Commissioner, BDA (paragraph 6): the petitioner's land is vacant and is not a part of the park developed by BDA; petitioner would have access to the 5 guntas from the pathway made in the park.¶27

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. SUCHETHA K.C. W/O SHANKARE GOWDA S K, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO 140, 2ND BLOCK, U K FARM, SIR M V NAGARA, CHIKKANAHALLI, SULIKERE POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560060¶7
Sri. VASANTH KUMAR H T.
respondent
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001¶13
Sri. SPOORTHI.V.
respondent
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020, REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER¶14
Sri. AJAY KUMAR.M.
respondent
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020¶15

Coram

AI extract

N S Sanjay Gowdaauthor¶20

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 17 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 8 Jul 2022
Case no.: WP/13658/2022
CNR: KAHC010303462022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (LA-BDA)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N S Sanjay Gowda

Sri Yogesh B S Vs the State of Karnataka
16 Jan 2025
Sri Muni Anjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka
16 Jan 2025
Sri. N. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka
16 Jan 2025
Smt Jyothi Vs the State of Karnataka
17 Jan 2025
Sri Shrinivas P D Vs the Chief Secretary
17 Jan 2025
Sri Manjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka
17 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Smt.Suchetha K.C. v. the State of Karnataka, WP/13658/2022 (KA), decided on 17 January 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 and Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Endorsement dated 08.10.2020 issued by the BDA (Annexure-M) stating that the petitioner would not be entitled to allotment of an alternative site in respect of 5 guntas of her land utilized for formation of a park.Bangalore Development Authority (R-2) · 08.10.2020
Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement dated 08.10.2020 vide Annexure-M issued by R-2.
During pendency of the petition, BDA submitted that the petitioner's request for allotment of an alternative site was under active consideration and would be handed over.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N S Sanjay Gowda

Parties & counsel