Disposed¶40

Sri H B Muniraj v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025WP/19057/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA alternative site allotment; non-existent Site No.2453, Sir M Visweswaraiah Layout (corresponds to Site No.2450); writ of mandamus refused absent prior formal representation to authority; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; liberty to submit representation to Commissioner BDA within two weeks, consideration within six weeks; inquiry against BDA officials pleaded but not decided; Karnataka HC 2025; petition disposed, not dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent No.1 - Commissioner, BDA within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order; respondent No.1 to consider the representation in accordance with law on its merits within six weeks thereafter. Prayer for inquiry against BDA officials not adjudicated. ¶40

Sri H B Muniraj Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (BDA) can be directed by writ of mandamus to allot an alternative site in lieu of Site No.2453, Sir M Visweswaraiah Layout, and cancel the sale deed, the petitioner having discovered that the site shown on ground corresponds to Site No.2450 and Site No.2453 does not exist. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The petitioner had made no formal representation to respondent No.1 seeking allotment of an alternative site in lieu of Site No.2453; without such a representation, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued at this stage.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent No.1 - Commissioner, BDA within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order; if such representation is submitted, respondent No.1 shall consider it in accordance with law on its merits within six weeks thereafter.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.19057 of 2025 (BDA), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (K.S. Hemalekha J., 28-10-2025), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a purchaser of BDA Site No.2453, Sir M Visweswaraiah Layout (allotment chain: BDA sale deed to respondent No.2 dated 14.10.2004, resale to respondent No.3, then to the petitioner; katha transferred and property tax paid for 2023-2024), found while constructing a compound wall that Site No.2453 does not exist and the ground position corresponds to Site No.2450 per the BDA approved layout plan. He prayed for mandamus directing BDA to allot an alternative site in lieu of Site No.2453, cancel his sale deed, and conduct an inquiry against BDA officials who allotted the non-existent site. The Court held that since the petitioner had made no formal representation to respondent No.1 seeking an alternative site, a writ of mandamus could not be issued at that stage, and disposed of the petition granting liberty to submit a detailed representation to the Commissioner, BDA within two weeks, to be considered on its merits in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42924 WP No. 19057 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.19057 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI H.B. MUNIRAJ S/O. LATE BHUJANGA G.K., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HOSADODDI VILLAGE, MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562 109. …PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI BHAT GANAPATHI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶10

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560020.

¶11

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

¶12

SRI VENKATESH S/O. SRI NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. NO.89, 13^TH CROSS, KETHAMARANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶13

SMT. S. ARUNA W/O SRI S.S. SURESH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R./AT NO.ALF-7/2, LIG BDA, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI GOPALKRISHNA R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42924 WP No. 19057 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ALLOT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF THE SCHEDULE SITE NO.2453, SITUATED AT 6^TH BLOCK, SIR. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, BENGALURU IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITHIN TIME FRAME PERIOD BY CANCELLING THE ABOVE SAID SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SAME LAYOUT AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for

¶22

the following reliefs :

¶23

“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order or direction by directing the respondent No.1 to allot the alternative site in lieu of the schedule Site No.2453, situated at 6^th Block, Sir. M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout, Bengaluru in favour of the petitioner within time frame period by cancelling the above said sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the same layout, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order or direction by Conduct Inquiry as against the officials of the respondent No.1 who are responsible for allotting the Site No.2453 in favour of the

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42924 WP No. 19057 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

respondent No.2 in respect of the schedule property even though there is no existence of the schedule site, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

c) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary to be grant under circumstances of the above Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶30

learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short).

¶31

Brief facts

¶32

Respondent No. 1 allotted site bearing number 2453 situated at Sir M Visweswaraiah Layout in favour of respondent No. 2, by executing a registered sale deed in his favour on 14.10.2004. Possession certificate and Katha certificate were also issued in favour of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3, who in turn sold the schedule property to the petitioner. The katha was duly

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42924 WP No. 19057 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

transferred in petitioner’s name, paid the property tax to the concerned authority in respect of site No. 2453 for the year 2023-2024.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner is that while constructing a compound wall around the site, he came to know from the neighbouring owners that site No. 2453 does not actually exist, and the site shown to him on ground corresponds to site No. 2450 as per the BDA approved layout plan. Hence, he seeks direction to respondent No.1 to allot an alternative site in lieu of the non-existent site No. 2453.

¶37

Upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner has not made any formal representation to respondent No. 1 seeking allotment of alternative site in lieu of site No. 2453. Without such a representation, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued at this stage. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42924 WP No. 19057 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

representation to respondent No. 1 – Commissioner, BDA, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. If such a representation is submitted, respondent No. 1 shall consider the same in accordance with law on its merits within a period of six weeks thereafter. With the said observation the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶43

CKL

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri H B Muniraj v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H B Muniraj 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

Sri M Suresh Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M D Charanraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagya B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

Smt. Gowramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority