Disposed¶40

Sri H Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2025WP/4418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bengaluru Development Authority; BDA site allotment; 'G' category application not amenable; fresh application in regular course; seniority-based representation; representations dated 01.01.2020 Annexures-C, D, E; disposal on joint submissions; Article 226 Constitution of India; K.Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority ILR 2011 KAR 120; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; W.P. No. 4418 of 2023; Justice M.G.S. Kamal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on the joint submissions placed on record: liberty reserved to the petitioners to file fresh applications as per the applicable provisions, and the BDA to consider applications made in the regular course, if found eligible, in accordance with law. ¶40

Sri H Ravi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (BDA) ought to be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 01.01.2020 (Annexures-C, D and E) and consequently allot sites to the petitioners in accordance with law. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and for the respondent-BDA were placed on record and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file fresh applications as per the provisions of law applicable for allotment of sites.ratio¶36
As submitted on behalf of the respondent-BDA and recorded by the Court, if applications are made by the petitioners in the regular course and are found eligible, the same will be considered in accordance with law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Single Bench, M.G.S. Kamal J.), Order dated 06.01.2025 in W.P. No. 4418 of 2023 (BDA) under Article 226: Petitioners, earlier applicants for allotment of sites under the 'G' category of the BDA whose prior writ petitions (orders dated 14.06.2017 in W.P.Nos.16354-16357/2017 and dated 17.01.2018 in W.P.Nos.52107-52109/2017 and W.P.Nos.54118-54123/2017) had been disposed of on the BDA's stand, founded on Sri. K.Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority (ILR 2011 KAR 120), that 'G' category applications were not amenable for consideration, with liberty to press seniority-based claims by representation, sought directions to the BDA to consider their representations dated 01.01.2020 and allot sites. Before the Court, counsel for the petitioners sought liberty to file fresh applications as per the applicable provisions, and counsel for the BDA undertook that applications made in the regular course, if found eligible, would be considered in accordance with law. Placing the submissions on record, the Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:132 WP No. 4418 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H RAVI S/O LATE HUCCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 78, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, JARAKANABANDE KAVAL KRISHNANANDA NAGAR POLICE QUARTERS NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 096.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI KUNNEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 78, 1^ST FLOOR,

¶11

1^ST MAIN ROAD, JARAKANABANDE KAVAL KRISHNANANDA NAGAR POLICE QUARTERS NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 096.

¶12

SMT UMADEVI D/O LATE SRI MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 223 1^ST G CROSS ROAD 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:132 WP No. 4418 of 2023

¶15

BASAWESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU -560 079.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560001.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARAPARK WEST CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU -560020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HANAMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS DATED 01.01.2020 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-C, D AND E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOT THE SITES AS SOUGHT FOR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:132 WP No. 4418 of 2023

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this writ petition, petitioners who had originally made application for allotment of sites under 'G' category had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5210752109/2017, W.P.No.54118-54123/2017 and 1635416357/2017.

¶30

This Court by order dated 14.06.2017 passed in W.P.Nos.16354-16357/2017 and by order dated 17.01.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.52107-52109/2017 and W.P.Nos.5411854123/2017 while taking on record the submission made by the counsel for the respondent-BDA regarding the application filed by the petitioners under 'G' category not amenable for consideration in view of order passed in the case of Sri. K.Raju

¶31

vs. Bangalore Development Authority (ILR 2011 KAR

¶32

120), had disposed of the writ petitions with an observation as under;

¶33

"However, based on seniority in the regular course, if the petitioners have any claim with the second respondent, appropriate representation in that regard if made, shall be considered in the background of the Regulations governing the allotment of sites."

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:132 WP No. 4418 of 2023

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners be reserved liberty to file fresh application as per the provisions of law applicable for allotment of sites and respondent -BDA be directed to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent -BDA submits

¶38

that if the applications are made by the petitioners in regular course and if they found eligible, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶39

5. Submissions is placed on record.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶42

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri H Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Ravi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Syed Adil Basha Quadri Vs Syed Azadullah

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs K v Forgings Pvt. Ltd.

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Dr. Naveen S L Vs the Commissioner

Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka

V Ramaiah Vs State of Karnataka