M S Raghu v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2025WP/16250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA allotment of marginal/encroached land (Schedule 'B' Property) kept in abeyance pending civil suit; writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; interim restraint on allotment in favour of either rival claimant; O.S.No.5524/2024, XLII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru CCH-43; Bengaluru Development Authority; petitioner's representations dated 01.03.2025, 15.04.2025 and 29.05.2025; earlier writ petition and writ appeal by respondent No.2 against allotment letter dated 23.02.2016 dismissed; Karnataka High Court, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; BDA not to allot the Schedule 'B'/marginal land to either the petitioner or respondent No.2, and the process of allotment to be taken up only after the decision in O.S.No.5524/2024. ¶¶60

M S Raghu Vs Bengaluru Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.1 (BDA) not to allot the encroached portion, i.e., Schedule 'B' Property (the marginal land contiguous to the petitioner and respondent No.2), in favour of respondent No.2 till disposal of O.S.No.5524/2024 pending before the XLII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43).

¶¶34

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the BDA not to allot the land sought, either to the petitioner or to respondent No.2, and to take up the process of allotment only after the decision arrived in the civil suit.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

Allotment of the land that is the subject matter of the present lis shall await the decision of the civil suit in O.S.No.5524/2024.

¶¶61

Key takeaways

The BDA is directed not to take process of allotment of the land either to the petitioner or to respondent No.2.ratio¶¶65
Observation that the concerned Court shall endeavour to expeditiously dispose of the civil suit, as it would lay the controversy to rest; this observation is not carried into the formal order.obiter¶¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna J.), 05.08.2025, W.P. No. 16250 of 2025 (BDA) — M S Raghu v. Bengaluru Development Authority & Anr. Petitioner, tracing title through a 23.02.2016 BDA allotment to his vendor's mother, a 04.03.2017 gift to the vendor and a subsequent sale, sought mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 to restrain the BDA from allotting the encroached marginal land (Schedule 'B' Property) to respondent No.2 till disposal of O.S.No.5524/2024 (declaration, possession, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction) pending before the XLII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43), in which all parties to the writ petition are parties; respondent No.2's earlier challenge to the 2016 allotment letter had failed in writ and appeal. Held, disposing of the petition: allotment of the disputed land shall await the decision in the civil suit; the BDA is directed not to take process of allotment in favour of either the petitioner or respondent No.2 in the interregnum; the trial Court was observed to endeavour expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30231 WP No. 16250 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 16250 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M S RAGHU

¶9

S/O M.SUBBA RAJU

¶10

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 61, AGS LAYOUT, NEW B.E.L ROAD, BENGALURU 560 094

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶16

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGLAURU 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:30231 WP No. 16250 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. K.N.VANDANA

¶21

W/O. P.V.GIRI,

¶22

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, 2^nd MAIN, 2^nd CROSS, RMV 2^nd STAGE, 3^rd BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 094

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.B.VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.PRITHVEESH.M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 NOT TO ALLOT THE ENCROACHED PORTION i.e., SCHEDULE B PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF R2 TILL THE DISPOSAL OF O S NO.5524/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-43 BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 01.03.2025, 15.04.2025 AND 29.05.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-R, S AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:30231 WP No. 16250 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶33

prayer:

¶34

"[a] issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 not to allot the encroached portion i.e., Schedule 'B' Property in favour of Respondent No.2 till the disposal of O.S.No.5524/2024 pending on the file of XLII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-43 by considering the Representations dated 01.03.2025, 115.04.2025 & 29.05.2025, filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-R, S & T.

¶35

and

¶36

[b] grant such other relief/reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and in the circumstances of the case."

¶37

Heard learned Senior counsel Sri Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner, learned

¶38

Sri Prithveesh.M.K., appearing for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri B.Vachan appearing for respondent No.1.

¶39

The issue in the lis revolves around the allotment of

¶40

the marginal land, which is said to be contiguous to the petitioner and respondent No.2.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:30231 WP No. 16250 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

A little history to the claim of the possession of the petitioner is to be narrated, albeit of the periphery. The BDA is said to have allotted the land in favour of the mother of the vendor of the petitioner i.e., one Mary Jayashree on 23.02.2016, and a sale deed is executed by the BDA. Later, as the allotment was of several parcels of the land, the allotment made to the mother of the vendor of the petitioner, is as follows:

¶45

ಎ) 1/2 x 8.30 x 24.52 = 101.76 ಚದರ �ೕಟ�.

¶46

All others documents/record reflect the name of the vendor's mother. The mother of the vendor gifts the property in favour of the vendor of the petitioner on 04.03.2017.

¶47

The gift deed results in daughter becoming the owner of the property. The daughter then executes the sale deed in favour of the present petitioner then begins the problem. The land is contiguous to both the petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 approaches this Court calling in question the allotment letter dated 23.02.2016. The allotment was not only in favour of the mother of the vendor of the petitioner but it contains other allotment as well. But the

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30231 WP No. 16250 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

writ petition comes to be dismissed. Writ appeal against the said order comes to be dismissed. After dismissal of these two, it transpires on interference by respondent No.2, the petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.5524/2024 seeking declaration, possession, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and several other reliefs. The said suit is pending adjudication. All the parties to the present lis are parties in the suit. Therefore, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment should not be made in favour of any one, as steps are being taken by the BDA to allot the land sought in favour of respondent No.2 herein.

¶51

Learned counsel Sri Prithveesh.M.K., appearing for respondent No.2 would, in an attempt to steer clear the controversy, takes this Court to the documents appended to the statement of objections. It is his submission that the petitioner himself had made a representation to allot marginal land abutting site No.24/1. Therefore, they two are different lands.

¶52

Be those submissions as they are, the counsel for

¶53

the parties would now submit that the suit is pending with the

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30231 WP No. 16250 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

aforesaid prayers. The allotment of the land being made subject to the out come of the suit that would suffice for the present.

¶57

In the light of the said submission, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the BDA not to allot the land that is sought, either to the petitioner or to respondent No.2 herein and take process of allotment, only after the decision that would be arrived in the civil Suit. The civil suit is of the year 2024. Therefore, to infuse finality into the civil suit would not be appropriate. However, I deem it appropriate to observe that the concerned Court shall endeavor to expeditiously dispose of the civil suit as it would lay controversy to rest.

¶58