Smt G Selvi v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026WA/353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation for land used for public works without acquisition notification; alternative site; BBMP; Bangalore Development Authority; BWSSB; Laggere Village; Site No.223A Sy.No.143; writ of mandamus; disputed questions of fact; injunction suit dismissal no bar to compensation claim; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; eight weeks to consider representation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.01.2025 set aside; Respondent Nos.2 (Joint Commissioner, BBMP) and 4 (Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority) directed to consider the appellant's representation and communicate their decision within eight weeks. ¶¶55

Smt G Selvi Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who claims that 3556 sq. ft. out of her 4856.25 sq. ft. plot (Site No.223-A, Sy.No.143, Laggere Village) has been acquired/used by the respondent authorities for public works without any notification being issued and without payment of compensation, is entitled to an alternative site or compensation.

¶¶48

Court's answer

The dismissal of the appellant's injunction suit (O.S No.7604/2009; RFA No.1242/2013) would not affect the appellant's right to claim compensation if her land has been used by the respondents for any public works.

¶¶53

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside, and Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to consider the appellant's representation and communicate the decision to the appellant within a period of eight weeks.

¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No.353 of 2025 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and K.S. Hemalekha, J.), oral judgment delivered on 20.07.2026. The appellant, holder of a sale deed dated 12.07.2004 for Site No.223A in Survey No.143, Laggere Village (acquired pursuant to decrees in O.S No.5770/1994 and O.S No.696/1997), claimed that 3556 sq. ft. of her 4856.25 sq. ft. plot was acquired/used by the respondent authorities (BBMP, BDA, BWSSB) for public works without any notification and without payment of compensation, and sought an alternative site or compensation. The learned Single Judge had rejected her writ petition (W.P.No.11093/2021) as involving disputed questions of fact, noting her earlier injunction suit (O.S No.7604/2009, dismissed 05.01.2013; RFA No.1242/2013 rejected). The Division Bench held that dismissal of the injunction suit does not affect the appellant's right to claim compensation where her land has been used for public works; it set aside the impugned order and directed Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to consider the appellant's representation and communicate the decision within eight weeks. Appeal disposed of.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37086-DB WA No. 353 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010159722025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

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

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. G SELVI W/O G.GAJARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1043, 6^TH CROSS SRIAMAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 021

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G V, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002

¶18

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE DASARAHALLI DIVISION BAGALAKUNTE NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 073

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:37086-DB WA No. 353 of 2025

¶23

CNR: KAHC010159722025

¶24

DASARAHALLI ZONE BAGALAKUNTE NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 073

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVOLOPMENT AUTHORITY HEAD OFFICE, B.B. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 020

¶26

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD PEENYA SUB-DIVISION NW3 PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 IN W.P No. 11093/2021 (GM-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No.11093/2021 (GM-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶32

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an

¶36

order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

¶37

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37086-DB WA No. 353 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CNR: KAHC010159722025

¶40

Court in Writ Petition No.11093/2021 (GM-RES). The appellant

¶41

had filed the said writ petition, inter alia , praying as under:

¶42

"A Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing to the Respondents No.1 to 5 to grant the alternative site or grant compensation in favour of petitioner in property site bearing No.223-A, in Sy.No.143 in residential layout formed by the Mysore Electro Chemical Works Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. in measuring East to west northern side 45 feet, Southern side 60 feet and North to South - Eastern side 95 feet western side 90 feet, in total measuring 4856.25 Square feet out of 4856.25 the respondents are acquired the property of the petitioner about 3556 Sq. feet, situated at Laggere Village, MEC Colony, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, the petitioner made Representations before the respondents No.1 to 5 at ANNEXURE-E1 to E5. "

¶43

The appellant has produced the sale deed dated 12.07.2004 executed by the Mysore Electro Chemical Works Limited Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited in favour of the appellant, for sale of property bearing Site No.223A in Survey No.143 situated at Laggere Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. The sale deed indicates that the said property had been acquired pursuant to a decree in O.S No.5770/1994 and a decree in O.S No.696/1997 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:37086-DB WA No. 353 of 2025

¶47

CNR: KAHC010159722025

¶48

It is the appellant's case that out of the 4856.25 sq. ft. area owned by him, 3556 sq. ft. has been acquired by the respondent authorities. The appellant claims that no notification has been issued and the appellant has also not been paid any compensation. In the aforesaid context, the appellant had made a representation for grant of an alternate site.

¶49

The learned Single Judge has rejected the said petition on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact. The order also notes that the appellant had filed a suit for injunction before the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S No.7604/2009 which was dismissed on 05.01.2013 and the appeal preferred against the said dismissal (RFA No.1242/2013) has also been rejected. It is noted that the said suit has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce approved plan and the witness examined on behalf of the appellant (PW1) had also admitted that neither any drainage nor roads have been laid in the layout. In the said view, the court declined to pass any injunction restraining the respondents from executing the public works.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37086-DB WA No. 353 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010159722025

¶53

Plainly, the dismissal of the suit would not affect the appellant's right to claim compensation if the appellant's land has been used by the respondents for any public works.

¶54

In the aforesaid view, we set aside the impugned order and direct respondent Nos.2 and 4 to consider the representation of the appellant and communicate the decision to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from date.

¶55

The writ appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶56

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶58

AHB

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt G Selvi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G Selvi v. the Commissioner

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

M N Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandra Naika Vs Leelavathi

Smt Padma @ Padmavathi B Vs Smt Ramakka

Smt. K. Jalaja Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Sri Jayaramu M H Vs the Project Director

Subramanyam v R Vs Anushree a