Disposed¶50

Mr Sachidanand L Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025WP/4559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA 'G' category site allotment; Justice Farooq Enquiry Committee report No.246/2015; resumption of allotted site; Rule 10(3) BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984 amendment deemed effective 14.12.2005; writ of mandamus for execution of sale deed site no.555 HSR Sector-6; representation dated 02.08.2024 before Commissioner BDA; direction to competent authority to decide representation within two months; Article 226; Karnataka High Court writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority of the BDA to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2024 (filed 03.08.2024, Annexure-L) in accordance with law, within two months of submission of a certified copy of the order together with another copy of the representation. ¶50

Mr Sachidanand L Khot Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the undated enquiry report No.246/2015 of the Justice Farooq Enquiry Committee directing resumption of the petitioner's 'G' category site (site no.555, HSR Sector-6, Bengaluru) should be quashed and a sale deed executed, in view of the amendment to Rule 10(3) of the BDA Allotment Rules, 1984 omitting a phrase with effect from 14.12.2005. +1 more

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Deeming it fit under the circumstances, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the competent authority of the BDA to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2024 (filed 03.08.2024, Annexure-L).

¶50

Key takeaways

The competent authority is expected to decide the representation in accordance with law within two months from the date a certified copy of the order, along with another copy of the representation, is submitted before it.ratio¶53
The amendment of Rule 10 omitted a phrase in sub-rule (3) of rule 10 with effect from 14.12.2005, i.e., prior to the enquiry report; the substantive entitlement question was left to the competent authority rather than decided by the Court.obiter¶48
It was not demonstrated on behalf of the petitioner that, pursuant to the enquiry committee's direction, the allotted site was not resumed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: Jayant Banerji and Umesh M Adiga JJ.; order per Banerji J.), W.P. No. 4559 of 2025 (BDA), decided 22.08.2025 — The petitioner, a former Member of the Legislative Council, sought quashing of the undated enquiry report No.246/2015 of the Justice Farooq Enquiry Committee (constituted pursuant to directions in a PIL), which, applying sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, had held him ineligible for the 'G' category site no.555, HSR Sector-6, Bengaluru (allotment letter dated 25.11.2006) and directed resumption, and further sought a mandamus for execution of the sale deed. Noting the State notification amending Rule 10(3) — whereby the words excluding persons allotted sites/houses by other Urban Development Authorities, the Karnataka Housing Board or other government agencies were deemed omitted with effect from 14.12.2005, i.e., prior to the enquiry report — and the pendency of his representation dated 02.08.2024 (submitted 03.08.2024) before the Commissioner, BDA, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the competent authority of the BDA to take a decision on the representation in accordance with law within two months of production of a certified copy of the order along with another copy of the representation.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32804-DB WP No. 4559 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 4559 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR.SACHIDANAND L KHOT, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, EX.MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HEBBAL VILLAGE AND POST, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGUM DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.HARSHA P BANAD., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, signed by K G RENUKAMBA BY ITS SECRETARY, Location: URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HIGH COURT ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA, OF KARNATAKA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32804-DB WP No. 4559 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER, QUASHING THE UNDATED ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.246/2015 PASSED BY THE JUSTICE FAROOQ ENQUIRY COMMITTEE REGARDING ‘G’ CATEGORY SITES ALLOTTED BY THE BDA WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H, (B) ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT/DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SITE NO.555 IN HSR, SECTOR-6, BENGALURU MEASURING 40 X 60 AS PER ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 25.11.2006 BEARING NO.BEM.AA.PRA.OO.KAA-1:555:H.S.R-6:06-07 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶27

This petition has been filed seeking the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

a) "Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, quashing the undated Enquiry report bearing

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32804-DB WP No. 4559 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

no.246/2015 passed by the Justice Farooq Enquiry Committee regarding 'G' category sites allotted by the BDA which is produced at Annexure H of this Writ Petition.

¶33

b) Issue appropriate Writ/direction to the respondents to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to site no.555 in HSR, Sector-6, Bengaluru measuring 40x60 as per allotment letter dated 25.11.2006 bearing no.BEM.Aa.PRA:Oo.KAA-1:555:HSR-6:06-07 produced at Annexure A of this Writ Petition.

¶34

c) Pass such any order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶35

The contention is that pursuant to directions passed by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, an enquiry Committee was constituted which filed its report in enquiry No.246/2015 directing resumption of the petitioner's site, as the petitioner was found ineligible as per Rule 10(3) of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984.

¶36

It is stated that on 16.04.2022, a notification was issued by the Karnataka Government amending Rule 10 of the BDA Allotment Rules, 1984, under which, the petitioner has gained eligibility for allotment of 'G' category sites. It is stated that a representation dated

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32804-DB WP No. 4559 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

02.08.2024 was filed before the Commissioner of

¶40

Bangalore Development Authority, which was submitted on 03.08.2024 in the office of the Commissioner- BDA.

¶41

It is noted from the enquiry report which is undated that it is an individual enquiry report in respect of the allotee, who is the petitioner in the instant case. A perusal of the report reflects that relying upon the then provision of sub rule (3) of rule 10 of the BDA Allotment of Sites Rules, 1984, the enquiry committee held that the allotee/petitioner was not entitled for the site in question under the general category. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the BDA to resume the site in question within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order by the BDA.

¶42

It has not been demonstrated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the enquiry committee, the allotted site was not resumed. However, it appears from perusal of the enquiry report that proceedings were held in the year

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32804-DB WP No. 4559 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Now, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking benefit of notification dated 13.04.2022, issued by the Government of Karnataka. The amended Rule 10, which is appended as Annexure-K to this petition, reads as under:

¶46

"Amendment of rule 10 : In the said rules, in rule 10, in sub-rule (3), the words "or has been allotted a site or house in any part in the State by any other Urban Development Authority or the Karnataka Housing Board or such other agency of the Government" shall be deemed to have been omitted with effect from 14.12.2005."

¶47

A perusal of the amendment of Rule 10 reflects

¶48

that a phrase in sub rule (3) of rule 10 has been omitted with effect from 14.12.2005, that is, prior to the enquiry report.

¶49

Under the circumstances, we deemed it fit to

¶50

dispose of the petition, with a direction to the competent authority of the BDA to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.08.2024 filed on 03.08.2024 that is enclosed as Annexure-L to this writ petition.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32804-DB WP No. 4559 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

We expect that a decision would be taken on the representation in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order passed today, along with another copy of the representation, is submitted before the competent

¶54

authority.

¶55

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶57

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Mr Sachidanand L Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sachidanand L Khot 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syeed Nizam Ali Vs Mr.I.R Patil

M/S G Corp Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Vs Naveen Mysore Prakash

Chandra Mouli Vs Central Bank of India

Sri. T. B. Ramakrishnan @ Sriram Vs Smt. Anjana Pattabiraman

Sri. P Srinivas Vs the Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda

Provident Housing Limited Vs Dasari Naresh