Allowed¶41

Dr.a Singarachari v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2025WP/21744/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA; Bangalore Development Authority; Arkavathy Layout; Challakere Village; absolute sale deed execution; lease-cum-sale agreement; allottee; endorsement refusal; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; WA.No.1272/2021; WP.N.16851/2015; K.S. Hemalekha; Karnataka HC 2025; sale deed registration direction; eight weeks compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued: respondents-BDA directed to execute and register an absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of site bearing No.637, Survey No. 38 (figure marked *38, corrected vide chamber Order dated 09.01.2026), XIX Block, Challakere Village, Arkavathy Layout, after following requisite formalities in accordance with law, within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶41

Dr.a Singarachari Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-BDA could withhold execution and registration of the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner (a BDA allottee) on the ground of pendency of WA.No.1272/2021, once that impediment had been removed by disposal of the writ appeal.

¶36

Court's answer

On a perusal of the impugned endorsement, the sole reason for refusal to execute the sale deed was the pendency of WA.No.1272/2021.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since the writ appeal stands disposed of, the petitioner is a BDA allottee with a lease-cum-sale agreement executed as early as 2014, and there is no subsisting legal impediment, the Court finds no jurisdiction for the respondent-BDA to withhold execution of the absolute sale deed, subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (BDA) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, decided on 01.12.2025 by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha, High Court of Karnataka. The petitioner, an 89-year-old allottee of BDA site No.637, Survey No. 38 (corrected vide chamber order dated 09.01.2026), XIX Block, Challakere Village, Arkavathy Layout, had an allotment letter dated 24.06.2006, a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 12.12.2014, a possession certificate and transfer of khatha in his favour. The BDA's endorsement dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure-K) refused execution of the absolute sale deed solely on the ground that WA.No.1272/2021 arising out of WP.N.16851/2015 was pending. Counsel for the BDA fairly submitted that the writ appeal stood disposed of on 31.07.2025. Holding that with the impediment gone, the allottee having completed formalities, and no subsisting legal impediment existing, the BDA had no jurisdiction to withhold execution, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to execute and register the absolute sale deed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:49751 WP No. 21744 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 21744 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR.A SINGARACHARI, S/O LATE A. RAMANUJA CHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT NO.701/12-87-405, A BLOCK, STERLING PARK APARTMENT, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 092.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, STATUTORY AUTHORITY, HAVING OFFICE A BDA OFFICES, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGLURU-560 020.

¶15

DEPUTY SECRETART III, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, STATUTORY AUTHORITY HAVING OFFICE AT, BDA OFFICES, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49751 WP No. 21744 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH EXECUTE AND REGISTER AN ABSOLUTE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AND IN RELATION TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to execute and register an absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site bearing No.637, Survey No. *38 , XIX Block, Challakere Village, Arkavathy Layout measuring East-West 9 meters and North-South 12 meters, totally measuring 108 square metres (for short 'the schedule property').

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

*Corrected vide chamber Order dated 09.01.2026

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49751 WP No. 21744 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid schedule property under an allotment letter dated 24.06.2006 (Annexure-A). Pursuant thereto, a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 12.12.2014, possession certificate was issued and khahta has been transferred in the name of the petitioner. Despite completion of all formalities, when the petitioner sought for execution of an absolute sale deed, the respondents have issued an endorsement dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure-K) stating that WA.No.1272/2021 arising out of WP.N.16851/2015 was pending adjudication, hence his request for execution of register sale deed could not be considered.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA fairly

¶31

submits that the said writ appeal has been disposed of on 31.07.2025.

¶32

The said submission is placed on record.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:49751 WP No. 21744 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

A perusal of the impugned endorsement indicates that the sole reason for refusal to execute the sale deed was pendency of the WA.No.1272/2021.

¶37

In view of the admitted fact that the writ appeal has already been disposed of and considering that the petitioner is an allottee of the BDA, a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in his favour as early as in the year 2014 and there is no subsisting legal impediment that this Court finds no jurisdiction for the respondent-BDA to withhold execution of the absolute sale deed subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

¶38

Accordingly, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶41

ii) The respondents are directed to execute and register an absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site bearing

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49751 WP No. 21744 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

No.637, Survey No. *38 , XIX Block, Challakere Village, Arkavathy Layout, after following the requisite formalities in accordance with law, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶47

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

¶48

*Corrected vide chamber Order dated 09.01.2026

Dr.a Singarachari v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a Singarachari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivaraju S Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Mrs. Laxmi Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Madan Lal Jain Vs State of Karnataka

The Bangalore City Jetty Community and Sree Nimbaja Devi Temple Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H S Shankaraiah Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

M/S Rajiv Travels Vs the State of Karnataka