Dismissed¶67

Srinivasulu P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/5212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA e-auction notification dated 10.02.2023 (No.BDA/EM/E-AUCTION/T-04/2022-23), Serial No.82, Site No.1384, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru; Section 38-D Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976; Rule 3 and Form No.1 of notification dated 21.07.2020; application not in prescribed form; not in a manner known to law; no interference; writ petition dismissed; W.P. No.5212 of 2023 (GM-RES); High Court of Karnataka; E.S. Indiresh, J.; earlier liberty reserved in W.P. No.17038/2021 by order dated 12.12.2022; Annexures G, H, J; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner has not made an application as required under Rule 3 as well as Form No. 1 of the notification dated 21.07.2020, seeking allotment of the unauthorised site with building. ¶60

Srinivasulu P Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the e-auction notification dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure-J) respecting Serial No.82 - property No.1384, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru - should be quashed, given that the petitioner claims to have made an application pursuant to the liberty reserved in W.P. No. 17038/2021, and whether that application complied with Rule 3 and Form No. 1 of the notification dated 21.07.2020 issued under Section 38-D of the BDA Act.

¶35

Court's answer

The petitioner has not made an application as required under Rule 3 as well as Form No. 1 of the notification dated 21.07.2020, seeking allotment of the unauthorised site with building.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's application was not made in a manner known to law, no interference is called for in the writ petition challenging the e-auction notification.

¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Srinivasulu P challenging the BDA e-auction notification dated 10.02.2023 bearing No.BDA/EM/E-AUCTION/T-04/2022-23 insofar as it covered Serial No.82 - property bearing No.1384, HAL 3rd Stage, Bengaluru - 560008, measuring 176.89 sq.m (Annexure-J). By order dated 12.12.2022 in W.P. No. 17038/2021 (Annexure-G) the Court had disposed of the petitioner's earlier petition reserving liberty to file an application under Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with all relevant documents, with a direction that BDA address the grievance; the petitioner thereafter made an application (Annexure-H) which, he contended, went unconsidered. BDA responded that applications must conform to its notification dated 21.07.2020 - online application in Form I with a fee of Rs.500 and enumerated encumbrance certificate, khatha, tax-paid receipt and utility-proof documents. Holding that the petitioner 'has not made an application as required under Rule 3 as well as the Form No. 1' and therefore not 'in a manner known to law', E.S. Indiresh, J. found no interference called for and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53347 WP No. 5212 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 5212 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRINIVASULU P S/O. SRI. LATE BABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.NO. 1436, 13TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE, HAL, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:53347 WP No. 5212 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶20

RE-ALLOTMENT/RE-CONVEYANCE,

¶21

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

THE ENGINEER MEMBER

¶23

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MURUGESH V. SHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E- AUCTION NOTIFICATION DTD 10.02.2023 BEARING NO.BDA/EM/E-AUCTION/T-04/2022-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS IN GENERAL AND THE R-5 IN PARTICULAR WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY I.E SITE MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO.82 IN THE AFORESAID E-AUCTION NOTIFICATION AS PROPERTY BEARING NO.1384 SITUATED AT HAL 3RD STAGE , BENGALURU -560008 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 14.00 PLUS 12.60/2 METERS AND NORTH TO SOUTH 13.00 PLUS 13.60/2 METERS AND IN TOTAL 176.89 SQUARE METERS, (ANNX-J) AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:53347 WP No. 5212 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶34

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the e-auction notification dated 10.02.2023 passed by the respondent- Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA').

¶35

It is argued by Sri. Sumanth L Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph No. 4 of the order dated 12.12.2022 in WP No. 17038/2021 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner has made an application at Annexure-H. However, the same has not been considered and therefore the impugned e-auction notification at Annexure-J requires to be interfered in this writ petition.

¶36

Per contra , Sri. Murugesh V Charati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -BDA, invited the attention of the Court to the notification dated 21.07.2020 in which the procedure has been made in so far as filing of the application

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53347 WP No. 5212 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

under Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and therefore it is contended that, since the petitioner has not made an application as per the Form No. 1, annexed along with the notification referred to above, no interference is called for.

¶40

In the light of the submission made by the learned

¶41

counsel appearing for the parties, paragraph 4 in W.P. No. 17038/2021 (Annexure G) reads as under:-

¶42

"4. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such action as available in law including filing an application under Section 38-D of the BDA Act along with all relevant documents to the BDA. If such an application is filed by the petitioner along with all relevant documents, the BDA shall address the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate decision in accordance with law bearing in mind the documents produced by the petitioner in the present petition and the documents to be submitted by the petitioner along with the representation".

¶43

(Emphasis supplied)

¶44

This Court, reserved liberty to the petitioner to make an application under Section 38-D of the Act. On careful

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:53347 WP No. 5212 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

consideration of the notification dated 21.07.2020, clause 3

¶49

reads as under:-

¶50

" Application under Section 38-D . (1) Any person who is entitled for allotment of land, vested in or acquired by the Authority, under Section 38D may make an application in the Form I to the Commissioner of the Authority online along with a fee of rupees five hundred within sixty days from the date of commencement of Section 38D, along with supporting documents specified in Section 38D or any of the following documents, namely:-

¶51