Smt. Sindunadig Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44574 WP No. 25433 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25433 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SINDUNADIG D/O. LATE SRI. VENKATESH H.V. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, SHARADHA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS ROAD, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SARWABHOWMA NAGARA, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. REPRESENTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

DEPUTY SEECRETARY-III, THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) DIRECT THE

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44574 WP No. 25433 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10/03/2022 VIDE ANNX-L AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her representation dated 10.03.2022 vide Annexure-L and to allot an alternative site at " Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout " in lieu of the site bearing No.198, as no sites are available at Arkavathi Layout.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents - BDA.

¶27

Brief facts are that:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44574 WP No. 25433 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The petitioner's father site No.198 is situated at Arkavathi Layout, Bangalore under the allotment letter dated 24.06.2006 and the entire sital amount was duly paid. A lease cum sale deed was executed on 18.10.2007 and a Khatha certificate was issued on 20.11.2007 in his favour. After the death of petitioner's father, her mother Smt. Shantha Kumari along with the petitioner, submitted a representation seeking transfer of the site in their name and also requested allotment of an alternative site, contending that the allotted site falls within the buffer zone and cannot be developed.

¶31

It is submitted that upon spot inspection and verification of the layout plan, the Assistant Executive Engineer submitted a report on 16.12.2020 (Annexure-N) stating that site bearing No.198 indeed falls within the buffer zone and that a conservation lane runs along its southern boundaries, which is not incorporated into the approved layout plan. Despite, this finding the petitioner's

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:44574 WP No. 25433 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

request for an alternative site has not yet been considered.

¶36

Per-contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents - BDA submits that the petitioner's representation so submitted will be considered, in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed within a reasonable time.

¶37

The submission is recorded.

¶38

In view of the submission made, and

¶39

considering the limited nature of the relief sought, the grievance of the petitioner can be adequately redressed by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation.

¶40

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:44574 WP No. 25433 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure-L) seeking allotment of an alternative site at "Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout" in lieu of the site bearing No.198 situated at Arkavathi Layout, Bangalore, keeping in mind the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-N) and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶49

JY

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK

Smt. Sindunadig v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sindunadig v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

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

Smt B S Ramadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shankar Kheni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sumithramma Vs the Commissioner

Mr Nonayya G K Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr.P.Jayaram Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka