D. v. Sumangala v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2025WP/813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus — Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) — allotment of alternate site — land utilized for Sir M. Vishwesvaraiah Layout — representation dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure-M) — direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider representation and pass orders within eight weeks — Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India — writ petition disposed of without adverting to merits — Justice K.S. Hemalekha — High Court of Karnataka, 11 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure-M) and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no allotment ordered on merits. ¶¶43

D. v. Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52843 WP No. 813 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.813 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

D.V. SUMANGALA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O. D. VENKATESH, #56, 1^ST STAGE, DWARAKA NAGARA, NEAR LITTLE CHAMPS, CHANNASANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K.P. SHRAVAN MADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶17

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-I BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:52843 WP No. 813 of 2023

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-3 & R-4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (BDA) TO COME FORWARD AND ALLOT A SITE (IN THE SAME LOCALITY) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS REQUESTED IN THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-M).

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure-M),

¶29

seeking allotment of an alternate site.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:52843 WP No. 813 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the schedule property purchased by the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 25.11.2002, came to be utilized for formation of Sir M. Vishwesvaraiah layout by respondent No.2-BDA. The petitioner received a notice in

¶35

response to the application made on 17.12.2005. Subsequently, respondent No.2 considered the application, and the petitioner paid the requisite fees. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.02.2008 to respondent No.2 seeking allotment of an alternate site. As no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 09.02.2024 seeking allotment of an alternate site.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent-authorities is in the process of considering the representation. However, the same would be considered in a time-bound manner.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:52843 WP No. 813 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Without adverting to the merits or demerits of

¶41

the rival claims, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation for allotment of an alternate site. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43