Smt Roopa N Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 8216 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT ROOPA N W/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: SERVICE RESIDING AT NO.818/A 1^ST CROSS, II PHASE 7^TH BLOCK, HOSAKEREHALLI BSK III STAGE BBMP WARD NO.161 BENGALURU - 560 085

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. AMARNATH V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER BDA COMPLEX KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH RAOD BENGALURU - 560 020

¶13

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - 3 BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BDA COMPLEX KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH RAOD BENGALURU - 560 020

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPECIAL TASK FORCE DIVISION BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BDA COMPLEX KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020

¶17

THE POLICE INSPECTOR SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020

¶18

SRI VIVEK JAIN B V S/O LATE VAJRANABHA B V AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.170, 5^TH CROSS ITTUMADU, BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 GO R-3 R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE IN POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE LAND SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE HEREIN BELOW WHICH BEING CONSTRUCTED IN TERMS OF LICENSE DATED 02.07.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 NOT TO PROCEED TO CANCEL THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 18.01.2019, POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.02.2019 AND SALE DEED DATED 19.02.2019 REGISTERED ON 28.02.2019 EXECUTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BDA IN FAVOUR OF THE R-5, REGD AS DOC.NO.BDA-1-08945/2018-19 OF BOOK NO.I STORED IN CD.NO.BDAD279 AT THE OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following

¶28

reliefs:

¶29

(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other Writ or direction, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue in possession of the residential house on the land shown in the schedule herein below which being constructed in terms of License dated 02.07.2019 vide Annexure-H;

¶30

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ or direction, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 not to proceed to cancel the allotment letter dated 18.01.2019, Possession Certificate dated 29.02.2019 and Sale deed dated 19.02.2019 registered on 28.02.2019 executed by the Deputy Secretary, BDA in favour of the 5^th respondent, regd as Doc.No.BDA1-08945/2018-19 of Book No.I stored in CD No.BDAD279 at the office of the Addl.District Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District, true copies of which are produced at Annexure-A, B and C respectively.

¶31

(iii) In the alternative, the 1^st respondent be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner a tentative sum of Rupees One Crore towards her investment on the schedule property and suffering due to the alleged illegality said to have been committed by the servants of the BDA leading to initiate proceedings against the vendor of the petitioner and other officials of BDA, pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.7/2021 having regard

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶34

to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, vide Annexure-K;

¶35

(iv) Issue any other writ or order to meet in the ends of justice."

¶36

It is the contention of the petitioner that she is

¶37

the bonafide purchaser of the site bearing No.818A, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet in all measuring 1500 square feet, formed in Sy.No.96, Hosekerehalli, 7^th Block, 2^nd Stage, BSK III Stage, Bengaluru, which was originally allotted to 5^th respondent by the respondent-BDA in terms of allotment letter dated 18.01.2019 and Possession Certificate dated 29.02.2019 vide Annexures-C and D. The respondent-BDA had also executed deed of sale on 19.02.2019 through respondent No.2 - Deputy Secretary in favour of 5^th respondent after receiving the valuable sale consideration. Thus, respondent-BDA had conveyed valid title and interest in favour of 5^th respondent. That the Khatha in respect of the aforesaid property was also registered in the name of 5^th respondent. Thereafter, the property was assessed for

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶40

payment of property tax by BBMP. Khatha was also made in the name of 5^th respondent in the records of BBMP. That

¶41

the petitioner had obtained loan from the financial institution for the purpose of purchase of the aforesaid property and has now constructed a residential house thereon after obtaining valid sanction plan from the authorities.

¶42

That when things stood thus, the 4^th respondent-police claiming to have registered a case in Cr.No.7/2021 on 22.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, upon a complaint filed by one Kantharaju against the officials of BDA, alleging their involvement in creating and fabricating the documents and allotting sites including the aforesaid site, have been causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the petitioner.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that the 5^th

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶46

respondent was the original allottee and the petitioner who is the subsequent bonafide purchaser of the property for the value cannot be disturbed or unsettled by the respondent-authorities apparently on irregularities allegedly committed by their own officials. Hence, petitioner seeks for grant of reliefs as stated above.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel respondent-BDA submits that the FIR has been registered against certain officials of the BDA apparently on account of certain irregularities committed by them in allotting the sites including petition site. In the said FIR, 5^th respondent has been arrayed as accused. He however fairly submits that no action is contemplated or taken by the BDA either to dispossess or take possession of the property from the petitioner. He submits that apprehension of the petitioner is therefore unfounded. He however submits that any such action would be in accordance with law. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶48

Heard and perused the record.

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶51

There is no dispute of the fact that respondent-

¶52

BDA originally allotted the petition site in favour of 5^th respondent or executed a deed of sale, registered khata in favour of 5^th respondent. There is also no dispute of the fact the 5^th respondent in return has sold the site in favour of the petitioner who has constructed residential house thereon after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. Merely because enquiry has been initiated against some of the officials of the BDA and against the 5^th respondent same would not either give any ground for the BDA either to interfere with the possession of the petitioner or to take any action against the 5^th respondent or the petitioner who is claims to be bonafide purchaser without due process of law. Unless conclusion of the enquiry and without due process of law, action if any may have to be taken against the said officials.

¶53

8. Further, in view of the aforesaid submission

¶54

made by learned counsel for the respondent -BDA that action if any would be taken only in accordance with law,

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021

¶57

respondent-authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner without due process of law.

¶58

It is made clear if after the enquiry that is

¶59

initiated and on compliance with the due process of law if it is established that the allotment of site in favour of the 5^th respondent was illegal, respondent-BDA would be at

¶60

liberty to take such action as may be available under law.

¶61

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶62

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

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

¶64

RR

Smt Roopa N v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Roopa N v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

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

Sri Ramachandra N Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mrs. Francis Balaraj Vs the Commissioner

Roopali Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Mr N Thayanna Vs the Commissioner

Sri N.Lakshminarayan Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramod R Kamath Vs State of Karnataka