Dr C K Venkateshappa Vs the Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 24.07.2025 AND ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE VIDE ANX-A, A1 AND A2 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for

¶27

the following prayers:

¶28

a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24/07/2025 and allot an alternative site vide Annexure A, A1 and A2.

¶29

b) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the letter No. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/C¨sÀÆ¸ÁéC -1118/2023-24 dated 23/02/2024 vide Annexure-G.

¶30

c) Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶34

The petitioner claims to have purchased a site in Ramasandra Village, Sulikere Gram Panchayat, Kengeri Hobli, bearing Katha No.28 and Site No.458 measuring 1200 Sq.ft., (for short 'the schedule property') under a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1999. Subsequently, respondent-BDA issued notification for acquisition of the land for the formation of Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Layout in the year 2014. Contending that his site has been acquired, the petitioner submitted a representation in the year 2014 seeking allotment of an alternative site.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite furnishing requisite documents along with the representation, no decision was taken by the respondentauthority. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a fresh representation in the year 2023 reiterating his request for allotment of an alternative site. It is contended that the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

claim of the petitioner has not been examined on merits and has been rejected only by issuance of an

¶39

endorsement.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the coordinate Bench of this Court in

¶41

the cases of SRI. PRAKASH MICHAEL Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY¹ (S ri. Prakash Michael ) and SRI. ALAGU SUNDARAM Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND

¶42

OTHERS² (Alagu Sundaram) wherein similarly placed landowners were permitted to register themselves as applicants under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (‘the Rules, 1984’ for short) notwithstanding delay or procedural objections and, directions were issued to consider their claims in accordance with law. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is entitled to similar order on principle of parity.

¶43

1 WP.No.10958/2014 (LA-BDA), D.D.07.07.2014

¶44

2 WP.No.47833/2019 (LA-BDA), D.D.16.01.2020

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3/BDA submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to register himself as an applicant within the time prescribed by the authority pursuant to the acquisition notification. It is contended that despite such opportunity, and even after extension of time, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of registration. It is, therefore, alleged that the petitioner, having not availed the remedy within the stipulated period, cannot seek parity with the petitioners in Prakash Michael and Alagu Sundaram (supra) and that no mandamus can be issued in his favour.

¶48

This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶49

The grievance of the petitioner is non-

¶50

consideration of his claim in accordance with law on the premise that his site is acquired for the formation of Sir

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

M.Vishveswaraiah Layout and that his representation though submitted as early as in the year 2014 and reiterated thereafter have not been considered in the manner known to law. This Court in Prakash Michael and Alagu Sundaram (supra), taking note of the peculiar facts and long lapse of time, permitted the petitioners therein to register themselves as applicants under the Rules, 1984 notwithstanding technical objection regarding the format or delay and directed consideration of their claim on merits.

¶54

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Prakash Michael ( supra ) has held at paragraph No.9 as under:

¶55

"9. In fact when several other applicants whose request had not been considered by the respondents were before this Court, this Court while disposing of W.P. No. 16547/2007 dated 24.10.2005, had granted liberty to file such applications and consideration of the same was made subject to the directions contained in paragraph 3 of the said order. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the said benefit should be granted to the petitioner

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

herein subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions which are enumerated in paragraph 3 of the order dated 24.10.2005, which for the purpose of convenience is extracted here below:

¶60

"3. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶61

(1) Petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by the BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement.

¶62

(2) Petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in this petition. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same.

¶63

(3) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30' X 40 in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

prices subject to the petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore.

¶67

4) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by the petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment (to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay).

¶68

5) It there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site.

¶73

(6) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under allotment Rules, their case may be considered for allotment of '20 X 30' sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of Land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites.

¶74

(7) The above scheme will be available to only those who ore owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not GPA/Agreement Holders).

¶75

(8) It is left to the discretion of the authorities also to consider the case of GPA Holders/Agreement Holders and persons who are claiming on the basis of affidavits the sites in question though they are not entitled to the same as a matter of right, only if they belong to weaker sections, poor and down-trodden.

¶76

(9) The authorities shall also consider whether these petitioners have purchased the sites by way of investment or with the intention of having a roof over their head and based on the said consideration, to pass

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

appropriate orders, in the light of the observations made in this order.".

¶80

The record indicates that the petitioner has been pursuing his claim by submitting representations along with supporting documents. The claim of the petitioner has never been objected on merits. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Prakash Michael (supra) has categorically held that in cases where land owners had approached the authority seeking alternative sites and the claims were not considered for considerable length of time, equity demands that such applicants be permitted to come within the fold of allotment process, subject to compliance with the statutory requirements under the Rules, 1984. The said principle has been consistently thereafter included in Alagu Sundaram (supra).

¶81

The petitioner herein stands on a similar footing to the petitioners in the aforesaid cases. No distinguishing feature has been pointed by the respondents to deny the petitioner the same treatment. This Court is, therefore, of

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the same indulgence as granted by the coordinate Bench without expressing any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the petitioner, which necessarily has to be determined by the respondent-authority in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court pass the following :

¶86

ORDER

¶87

i) The Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶88

ii) The endorsement dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure-G) is quashed.

¶89

iii) The petitioner shall register himself as an applicant for allotment of a site under the Rules, 1984 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶90

iv) Upon such registration, the respondentsBDA shall receive the application, permit

¶91

12 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:52088 WP No. 24501 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

the petitioner to pay the prescribed fee and consider his claim in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in any event within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the application.

¶95

v) The respondent-BDA shall treat the petitioner as an applicant priority in allotment and examine his eligibility for allotment of alternative site in Sir M.Vishveswaraiah Layout or any other layout in Bengaluru, subject to the petitioner satisfying eligibility requirements under the Rules, 1984.

¶96

Sd/-

¶97

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶98

PHM/

¶99

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Dr C K Venkateshappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr C K Venkateshappa 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. Shashi Shekar Naik Vs Bangalore Development Authority

N Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sadappa Vs the State of Karnataka

S Kumaresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Radha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Bangalore Development Authority