Ravishankar B R Vs the State of Karnataka

RAVISHANKAR B R S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO B N, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. APARTMENT NO. 603, KONCEPT NAKSHATRA, 2^ND MAIN, 14^TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARINAGAR, PAPAREDDYPALYA, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 072. …PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SMT. U SHRADDHA BHAT, FOR SRI. VYSHAK MANIKANTA S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:46891 WP No. 29939 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WEST) KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 BDA TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATE SITE ADMEASURING 1200 SQUARE FEET TO THE PETITIONER IN SIR M. VISVESVARAYA LAYOUT, 7^TH BLOCK, OR IN ANY OTHER EQUIVALENT LOCALITY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.08.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A AND IN TERMS OF THE ORDERS DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WP NO. 21351/2022 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, 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

¶25

direction to respondent No.2 – Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) to allot an alternate site measuring 1,200 square feet to the petitioner in Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 7^th Block or in any other equivalent locality, in

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46891 WP No. 29939 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

accordance with the representation dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure-A) and in terms of the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.21351/2022.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶30

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

Brief facts:

¶32

The petitioner was originally allotted Site

¶33

No.253/2 of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 7^th Block, measuring 9 x 12 meters, by respondent No.2–BDA under allotment letter dated 15.11.2011. The sital value was paid, possession was delivered, and a registered sale deed was executed by the BDA in favour of the petitioner on 28.04.2012. Upon physical verification, the petitioner found that the allotted site was not identifiable and had been utilized for road formation. He therefore submitted a representation to the respondent-authorities seeking allotment of an alternate site.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46891 WP No. 29939 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Non-consideration of the petitioner’s

¶37

representation compelled him to approach this Court in W.P.No.21351/2022, which was allowed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation within four weeks. Despite such direction, no decision was taken by the respondents, necessitating the present writ petition.

¶38

When the BDA has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, issued possession certificate, khata and has been colleting property tax, the fact that the petitioner’s site has been utilized for road formation is undisputed. In these circumstances, relegating the petitioner once again to the ritual of consideration of representation would be wholly unjust.

¶39

The admitted fact position warrants a positive mandamus directing allotment of alternate site and accordingly this Court pass the following:

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46891 WP No. 29939 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶45

ii. The respondents are directed to allot an alternative site of similar dimensions as that of Site No.253/2, 7^th Block, Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, free from all encumbrances.

¶46

iii. If a site of similar dimensions is not available in 7^th Block, Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, the petitioner shall be allotted a site of the same measurement in any other equivalent layout, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶49

PHM, AT

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Ravishankar B R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar B R 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

Smt S Bhagirathi Vs Bescom Electric Supply Company Ltd.

Syed Waseem a S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Puttalakshmamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

A Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S Lakshminarayana Vs the Commissiner