Disposed¶51

Shri Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025WP/34197/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of by single-judge oral order (Justice K.S. Hemalekha, HC Karnataka, 18.11.2025). Article 226 mandamus; land acquisition preliminary notification dated 12.03.2025 by Greater Bengaluru Development Authority (GBDA); restriction on alienation pending acquisition; no final notification or award issued; permission sought to sell Sy.No.72 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, Hosur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk; representations dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-D and D1); direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from receipt of the copy of the order. ¶51

Shri Rajesh Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 (GBDA and Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru South District) can be directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 16.10.2025 (Annexures-D and D1) and permit him to sell land bearing Sy.No.72, measuring 2 acre 20 guntas, situated at Hosur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, pending acquisition (preliminary notification issued, no final notification or award).

¶27

Court's answer

The petitioner's grievance would stand redressed if necessary directions were issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3; accordingly the Court proceeded to pass the operative order.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order disposing Writ Petition No.34197 of 2025 (LA-UDA) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Greater Bengaluru Development Authority and Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru South District) to consider his representations dated 16.10.2025 (Annexures-D and D1) and permit sale of land bearing Sy.No.72, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, at Hosur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. The land stood proposed for acquisition under a GBDA preliminary notification dated 12.03.2025, restricting the petitioner's right of alienation; admittedly, no final notification or award had been issued. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the representation would be considered in accordance with law in a time-bound manner, and holding that the grievance would stand redressed by issuing necessary directions, the Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47342 WP No. 34197 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.34197 OF 2025 (LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI RAJESH S/O H.D. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HOSURU VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109

¶10

REPRESENTED THROUGH GPA HOLDER MALIGACHARI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O MALIGACHARI SURADENPURA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.114, SHASTA NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, CT BED ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2^ND BLOCK, BENGALURU-560070.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI HARSHA N. VEERANGOUDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

GREATER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR, RAMANAGAR TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT,

¶17

B.M. ROAD, RAMANAGAR-562 159.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:47342 WP No. 34197 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶22

BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT,

¶23

DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE COMPLEX,

¶24

B.M. ROAD, RAMANAGAR TOWN-562 159.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI HARISHA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16.10.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND D1 RESPECTIVELY AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO SELL THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.72 MEASURING 2 ACRE 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HOSUR VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶32

notice for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶33

Sri Shivaprasad Shantangoudar, learned

¶34

counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶35

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider his representation dated 16.10.2025, requesting permission to sell his land in Sy.No.72,

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47342 WP No. 34197 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, situated at Hosur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶40

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

¶41

The petitioner’s land was proposed for acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 12.03.2025 issued by the Greater Bengaluru Development Authority (GBDA). By virtue of the said notification, the right of the petitioner to alienate his property stands restricted. Admittedly, no final notification or award has been issued till date. The petitioner therefore submitted representation seeking permission to sell his land.

¶42

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submitting the above representation, the authorities have not taken any decision, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47342 WP No. 34197 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶46

submits that the petitioner’s representation will be considered in accordance with law within a time bound manner.

¶47

The said submission is recorded.

¶48

The grievance of the petitioner would stand

¶49

readdressed if necessary directions are issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶52

ii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶55

AT /List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89

Shri Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajesh v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravishankar B R Vs the State of Karnataka

A Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Maligachari Naraynswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Bhagya M R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chinnamma Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)