Disposed¶50

Sri Janardhan Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025WP/25391/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

G category allotment; BDA; Site No.71 RVM II Stage; D.V. Shylendra Kumar Committee; Inquiry Committee order dated 29.06.2021; Annexure-G; confirmation of allotment; representation unconsidered; mandamus under Articles 226 & 227; S. Vasudeva vs. Government of Karnataka, W.P.No.23475/2010 disposed 25.08.2012; Article 14; two-month compliance direction; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2-BDA to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Committee's recommendations dated 29.06.2021, and to take a decision on the confirmation/allotment of the site in favor of the petitioner in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ¶50

Sri Janardhan Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2-BDA is to be directed to implement and effectuate the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the Inquiry Committee headed by Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar (Annexure-G), and to consider the petitioner's representation regarding confirmation/allotment of Site No.71.

¶24

Court's answer

The petitioner's representation requires consideration by respondent No.2-BDA in accordance with law, taking into account the recommendations made by the Committee.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-BDA to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Committee's recommendations dated 29.06.2021, and to take a decision on the confirmation/allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law within two months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (K.S. Hemalekha J.), Writ Petition No. 25391 of 2025 (BDA), decided 25.10.2025 — BDA 'G' category allotment. The petitioner, allotted Site No.71, RVM II Stage under 'G' Category (allotment order 30.10.2009; lease-cum-sale agreement 06.11.2009; entire sital value paid to BDA), sought a mandamus under Articles 226 & 227 to implement the order dated 29.06.2021 of the Inquiry Committee headed by Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar (Annexure-G) recommending confirmation of his allotment — the Committee having been constituted pursuant to the Division Bench decision in S. Vasudeva v. Government of Karnataka (W.P.No.23475/2010 and connected matters, disposed 25.08.2012), which held 'G' category allotments illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Noting BDA's failure to act on the recommendations and the petitioner's unconsidered representation, the Court disposed of the petition, directing BDA to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in view of the Committee's recommendations dated 29.06.2021, and to decide the confirmation/allotment of the site in accordance with law within two months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42304 WP No. 25391 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25391 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI JANARDHAN SWAMY S/O LATE SRI. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.705, 13^TH CROSS ROAD 32^ND MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶10

NOW RESIDING AT NO.46-P2-B, K.I.D.B. HARDWARE PARK, BANGALORE-562149.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A

¶15

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN-DEVELOPMENT REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4^TH FLOOR, VEEKASH SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER

¶18

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560020.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S, AGA FOR R1;

¶21

SRI.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42304 WP No. 25391 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BDA TO IMPLEMENT AND EFFECTUATE ORDER DATED 29.06.2021 PASSED BY THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE HEADED BY HONBLE JUSTICE SRI.D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

¶28

Sri C.Venkatesh, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.2.

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner was allotted Site No.71, RVM II Stage,

¶31

under ‘G’ Category (scheme). The allotment order was issued on 30.10.2009, and the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed on 06.11.2009. The entire sital value of the site was paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA).

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:42304 WP No. 25391 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in S.VASUDEVA vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ held that the allotments made under ‘G’ category (scheme) pursuant to the directions of the State Government were illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, with certain observations.

¶36

Pursuant to the said decision, the State Government constituted a committee headed by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.V.Shylendra Kumar known as D.V.Shylendra Kumar Committee (Committee) to examine the validity of such allotments and to make appropriate recommendations.

¶37

The petitioner was issued notice by the Committee and was afforded an opportunity to substantiate the validity of his allotment. The Committee, upon consideration of the material placed before it, by an order dated 29.06.2021 at Annexure-G, recommended that respondent No.2-BDA to confirm the allotment of the site

¶38

1 W.P.No.23475/2010 and connected matters disposed on 25.08.2012

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:42304 WP No. 25391 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

in favor of the petitioner and to complete all the necessary formalities.

¶43

The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the specific recommendations made by the Committee, respondent No.2-BDA has not taken any steps to act upon the recommendations or confirm the allotment of the site

¶44

in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted a representation in this regard, which remains unconsidered.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that i f reasonable time is granted, the petitioner’s representation will be considered in accordance with law.

¶46

Having regard to the limited scope of reliefs sought in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's representation requires consideration by respondent No.2-authority, in accordance with law, taking into account the recommendations made by the Committee.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:42304 WP No. 25391 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of , with a direction to respondent No.2-BDA to consider the petitioner's representation and to pass appropriate orders, keeping in view the recommendations made by the Committee dated 29.06.2021, and to take a decision regarding the confirmation/allotment of the site in favor of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Janardhan Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Janardhan Swamy v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivas S Gowda Vs Smt Hemalatha M

Sri Satish Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Akshaya Villa Owners Association Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri S C Sharma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

N R Nagaraj Vs the Commissioner