Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri K v Rudramurthy

SRI K V RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O K P VIRUPAKSHAIAH, R/AT NO. 118, CHENNAVEERAPPA LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶26

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BDA HEAD OFFICE COMPOUND, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.H.R.NARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAJESWARA.P.N., ADVCAOTE FOR C/R1; SRI.M.W.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R2 AND 3)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS b) ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-26177/2024 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶34

Heard, Sri.Ajaykumar.M., learned counsel appearing

¶35

for the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

referred to as 'BDA'), Sri.Narayana Rao., learned counsel for Sri.Rajeswara.P.N., for caveator/ respondent No.1 and Sri.Sudev Hegde., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶39

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.26177/2024.

¶40

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.

¶41

The State Government acquired large extent of land including the land in Sy.No.8 measuring 27 Acres 37 Guntas situated at Kannalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru for formation of "Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout". Out of the said 27 Acres 37 Guntas of land in Sy.No.8 of Kannalli Village, the petitioner claimed ownership of 01 Acre 20 guntas. The claim of the ownership is based on some grant dated 08.09.1979 and Grant Certificate dated 06.11.1979. There are handwritten

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

entries in RTC in favor of the petitioner in respect of 01 Acre 20 Guntas of land for the period from 1981-1982 to 1999-2000, however the computerized entries are absent in the revenue records in respect of the said land in favor

¶45

of the petitioner.

¶46

The Land Acquisition Officer has accepted the claim of the petitioner to be the owner of 01 Acre 20 Guntas of land in Sy.No.8 and accordingly, the compensation under the award has been assessed and in the ratio of 40:60, the sites have been allotted to the petitioner towards compensation. In altogether, 16 sites i.e., 09 sites measuring 9 X 12 meters and 07 sites measuring 6 X 9 meters have been allotted to the petitioner, in all 14,375 Sq.Ft. In respect of 09 sites, the sale deeds have already been executed in favor of the petitioner by the BDA.

¶47

When the BDA was taking steps to execute sale

¶48

deed in respect of balance 07 sites in favor of the

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

petitioner, the Regional Commissioner has sent a communication dated 20.05.2024 to the BDA stating that there is a possibility of creating bogus record in favor of the petitioner over the Government land and he has requested the Government to carryout a detailed investigation. The BDA was requested to immediately suspend the allocation order made in favor of the petitioner for registering the Conveyance deed in respect of the sites allotted to the petitioner.

¶53

It has also been brought on record that, in pursuance to the said report submitted by the Regional Commissioner, the Government has taken steps to suspend the concerned Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector and the investigation is on regarding the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner over the land in question.

¶54

As the BDA was not executing the conveyance deed in respect of 07 sites, the petitioner came before this

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Court in W.P.No.26177/2024 praying Writ of Mandamus as well as for quashing of the Communication dated 24.06.2024 issued by the Commissioner, BDA for suspending the allotment order in favor of the petitioner.

¶58

The learned Single Judge having considered the submissions, disposed of the Writ Petition in following terms:

¶59

" ORDER

¶60

i. The impugned letter dated 24.06.2024 bearing No .¨ÉAC¥Áæ/D/12/2024-25 written by the

¶61

Commissioner, BDA to the fourth respondent vide Annexure-'A' to the writ petition is hereby set aside.

¶62

ii. The second respondent shall execute the necessary sale deeds in favour of the petitioner in respect of the remaining 7 sites within a period of four weeks from today.

¶63

iii. It is hereby clarified that the State is having the liberty to initiate appropriate action to prove that it is the owner of the property

¶64

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

concerned and in case if it were to succeed, the petitioner is liable to indemnify the respondents in accordance with law.

¶67

iv. It is needless to state that if the State is

¶68

of the opinion that fraud has been played, it can initiate appropriate action against such persons. In case any claim is made by the State before any Civil Court regarding the title of the properties, the same shall be decided by the Civil Court without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above.

¶69

v. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶70

vi. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,

¶71

stand disposed of."

¶72

The learned Single Judge has taken care of the apprehension of the authorities regarding the claim of the petitioner being bogus in respect of the land in question. It has been held that the allotment and conveyance of the sites will be subject to the enquiries being held in respect of the petitioner's claim over the land in question.

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:15326-DB WA No. 1863 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in as much as the authorities have been given discretion to proceed with the investigation of the claim of the petitioner over the land in question. Therefore, the BDA should convey the sites by executing necessary Conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall not alienate or create any third party right till the proceedings initiated for investigation into his claim over the land and allotment of 16 sites are finally concluded.

¶77

With the above observation, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. The Conveyance deed should be executed by the BDA in favor of the petitioner in respect of 07 sites within the period of 3 months from today. However, the same would be subject to the outcome of the pending investigation. We also make it clear that necessary endorsement in the revenue entries should be made once the sites are conveyed in favor of the petitioner against all 16 sites allotted to the petitioner.

¶78