Mr. Berger Douglas Otteran Vs the State of Karnataka

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDERGLEN DOMINIC BRIGGS S/O. O. BRIGGS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.203, GROUND FLOOR, PRABHA VILLA, 6^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR RAJKUMAR PARK KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT, 5TH MAIN RD, KUMARAPARK WEST,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53759 WP No. 36934 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 5^TH MAIN RD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38D OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT DATED 28.10.2025 AS PER ANNX-A, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶28

notice for respondent No.1.

¶29

Sri. Vasantha, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:53759 WP No. 36934 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶34

“1. Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd Respondent to consider the Representation issued to the Respondent No.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section.38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, dated 28-10-2025 as per Annexure-‘A’ AND ‘B’;

¶35

2. Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ Directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 not to take coercive steps and disturb the possession of the Petitioners from the schedule property till the consideration of the representation dated 28-10-2025;

¶36

3. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶38

learned AGA for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in occupation and enjoyment of

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53759 WP No. 36934 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the property bearing Site Nos.3 and 3-A, formed out of Assessment No.17/10A, situated at Thanisandra Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, for more than three decades. It is further submitted that in identical circumstances this Court in the case of Syed

¶43

Munnavar and Another vs The State of Karnataka

¶44

and Others¹ (Syed Munnavar) directed the respondents therein to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶45

The submission is placed on record.

¶46

Having regard to the nature of relief sought and

¶47

the order passed by this Court in similar matters, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by issuing a similar direction. Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2025 (Annexures A and B) in accordance with law, within an outer limit of two months

¶48

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶49

1 W.P.17308/2025, DD 15.10.2025 ,

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:53759 WP No. 36934 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

It is made clear that, until such consideration

¶54

and decision, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner nor disturb his possession of the schedule property.

¶55

With the above observations and directions, the

¶56

Writ Petition stands disposed of .

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶59

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mr. Berger Douglas Otteran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Berger Douglas Otteran 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 Jayalakshmi N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt N Anusuyamma Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri S a Kiran Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajeev Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha M H Vs State of Karnataka