Disposed¶40

Smt R. Shantha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025WP/16075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA Act Section 38D regularisation of possession; direction to BDA to consider representation dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-A); betterment charges; writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; Bangalore Development Authority non-consideration of representation; Valagerehalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk; sale deed dated 10.11.1997; OS No. 7117 of 2007; RFA 1864 of 2013; eight-week compliance timeline; contentions kept open; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; WP No. 16075 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:51084.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 (Commissioner, BDA) directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-A) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order; all contentions of both parties kept open. ¶40

Smt R. Shantha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Bangalore Development Authority) ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2025 seeking regularisation of her possession under Section 38D of the BDA Act.

¶35

Court's answer

The material on record indicates that the petitioner had made a detailed request supported by documents, and the authority is required to take a decision in accordance with law on her representation dated 07.03.2025.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Since the relief sought is only a direction to consider the representation, the grievance stands redressed by issuing directions; accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-A) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, W.P. No. 16075 of 2025 (BDA), decided 04-12-2025 by Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha. Petitioner, absolute owner and possessor since 1997 of a residential property (Municipal Katha No. 44/5 / Sy. No. 44/5B, Valagerehalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk) purchased under registered sale deed dated 10.11.1997, whose suit OS No. 7117/2007 was dismissed and whose appeal RFA 1864/2013 was disposed of with liberty to pursue regularisation under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.2-BDA to consider her representation dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-A) for regularisation of possession, she having expressed willingness to pay betterment charges. Held: the authority is required to take a decision in accordance with law on the documented representation; writ petition disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt of the certified copy; all contentions of both parties kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51084 WP No. 16075 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.16075 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. R. SHANTHA W/O. M. RAMDAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.H51, VINAYAKA TOWERS, KALASIPALYA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SHRIKANTA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSEU A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.03.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A, AND REGULARIZE THE POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 38-D OF BDA ACT.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:51084 WP No. 16075 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the residential property bearing Municipal

¶27

Katha No. 44/5, carved out of Sy. No. 44/5 and renumbered as Sy No. 44/5B, situated at Valagerehalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, purchased under a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1997, upon which she has constructed a house and resides therein. It is stated that she is in continuous and uninterrupted possession since the date of purchase and contends that the property was originally part of a layout formed by a previous owner and subsequently sold through successive registered conveyances. It is submitted that she earlier instituted OS No. 7117 of 2007 seeking protection of her possession against third party interference. Though the suit was dismissed, the appeal in RFA 1864 of 2013 was disposed of with the liberty to pursue regularisation under

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51084 WP No. 16075 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (‘the Act’ for short). Pursuant thereto, she submitted a representation dated 07.03.2025 seeking regularisation of her possession under Section 38D of the Act and

¶31

expressing willingness to pay betterment charges.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶33

AGA for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-BDA.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite continuous possession, production of documents and despite all materials available about her residence, the respondent/BDA has not acted upon the representation.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner is limited to nonconsideration of her representation dated 07.03.2025 seeking regularisation of her possession under Section 38D of the Act. The material on record indicates that the petitioner had made a detailed request supported by documents and the authority is required to take decision in accordance with law. Since the relief sought is only a

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51084 WP No. 16075 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

direction to consider the representation, the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed if necessary directions are issued. Accordingly this Court pass the following :

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶41

(ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-A) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶42

All contentions of both parties are kept open.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶45

CKL

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Smt R. Shantha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt R. Shantha v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Muniyappa E Vs the State of Karnataka

Chrysolite Property Developments Private Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Mahadeva C Vs State of Karnataka

Gowramma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri Dyavappa, Vs the Prl. Secretary

Smt N Anusuya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B v Ramachandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka