Sheshagiri J v Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:24.12.2020 ISSUED BY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN NO. �ೆಂಅ�ಾ� / ಅಭೂ�ಾ�ಅ /912/2020-21

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34945 WP No. 10126 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. �ೆಂಅ�ಾ� / ಅಭೂ�ಾ�ಅ /912/2018-19 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No. �ೆಂಅ�ಾ� / ಅಭೂ�ಾ�ಅ /912/2020-21, dated 24.12.2020 and the

¶27

endorsement bearing No. �ೆಂಅ�ಾ� / ಅಭೂ�ಾ�ಅ /912/2018-19 dated

¶28

14.06.2018, issued by the respondent No.2. He has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to allot an alternate site measuring 30' x 40' either in Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout or any other layouts, namely Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, Shivaram Karanth Layout etc.,

¶29

(i) The petitioner claims that he was the owner of a site measuring 30' x 40' bearing Panchayath Khata No.22/2 situated at Ramasandra village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34945 WP No. 10126 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Taluk, he having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 13.12.1990. He claims that the aforesaid site was formed in Sy.No.22/2 of Ramasandra Village, which was notified for acquisition for formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout. On coming to know that his site was also acquired for formation of the layout, he submitted a representation dated 15.04.2007 requesting the respondent No.2 to allot an alternate site in the same locality. The Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 29.05.2007 to the petitioner directing him to show the existence of his site to the Revenue Inspector. The petitioner was also directed to produce the sale deed in original and the registration card as well as the layout plan. The petitioner submitted the relevant documents and he was under the impression that the respondent No.2 would consider his case for allotment of an alternate site.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner claims that he was made to run from pillar to post by the officials of the respondent No.2 to know about the development in the matter of allotment of an alternate site. In the meanwhile, a notice was caused to him by the Grama Panchayath, Sulikere, demanding a sum of Rs.6,650/- towards property tax. The petitioner paid the said

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34945 WP No. 10126 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

property tax. The petitioner further contends that on 14.06.2018, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement on 14.06.2018 stating that the petitioner has not obtained a registration card and therefore, his request for grant of an alternate site cannot be considered. On receipt of the said endorsement, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 05.09.2018 requesting the respondent No.2 to allot him an alternate site. However, the said representation was not considered. Therefore, another representation dated 16.10.2020 was submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, who was also the Ex-Officio Commissioner of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 thereafter, issued an endorsement dated 24.12.2020 referring to the letter of the Government dated 26.04.2018 and refused to allot an alternate site on the ground that the petitioner did not register himself under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1984'). Upon receipt of the said endorsement, the petitioner again approached the respondent No.2 by another representation dated 05.01.2021.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34945 WP No. 10126 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submits that the rejection of the request of the petitioner was on the ground that he had not enrolled with the respondent No.2 for allotment of a site under the Rules, 1984, as per the judgment of this Court in Junjamma and others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others [ILR 2005 KAR 608]. He therefore, contends that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to register with the respondent No.2 under the Rules, 1984, as directed by this Court in Junjamma's case, referred supra.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submitted that the time prescribed for filing application seeking allotment of alternate sites has expired on 04.07.2026 and therefore, the respondent No.2 is handicapped to consider the request of the petitioner.

¶41

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶42

The petitioner had purchased the site in question

¶43

much prior to the acquisition of the land for formation of Sir M.

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34945 WP No. 10126 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Vishweshwaraiah Layout. It is not in dispute that the land in Sy.No.22/2 of Ramasandra Village, where the site in question was located was acquired for the purpose of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout. The acquisition for formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout was upheld by this Court and relief was granted to those revenue site holders, who had purchased the sites prior to the acquisition by directing them to register themselves under the Rules, 1984 and the respondent No.2 was directed to consider allotment of alternate sites to such revenue site owners. The petitioner has been pursuing his claim for allotment of an alternate site in terms of various representations. Ideally, the respondent No.2 must have guided the petitioner for getting himself registered with the respondent No.2 under the Rules, 1984. The impugned endorsement dated 14.06.2018 at Annexure - L is as bald as it could be and it does not even indicate that the petitioner had to register himself with the respondent No.2 under the Rules, 1984. The subsequent endorsement dated 24.12.2020 though refers that the petitioner should have got himself registered under the Rules, 1984, the default in getting register under the Rules, 1984 per se should not deprive a substantive right that the

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34945 WP No. 10126 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

petitioner had for allotment of an alternate site. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsements refusing the benefit of obtaining an alternate site, are liable to be interfered with.

¶50

Accordingly, this petition is allowed . The

¶51

endorsement bearing No. �ೆಂಅ�ಾ� / ಅಭೂ�ಾ�ಅ /912/2020-21, dated

¶52

24.12.2020 and the endorsement bearing

¶53

No. �ೆಂಅ�ಾ� / ಅಭೂ�ಾ�ಅ /912/2018-19 dated 14.06.2018, issued by

¶54

the respondent No.2 are quashed. The petitioner is permitted to register under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The respondent No.2 shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and as directed by this Court in Junjamma and others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others [ILR 2005 KAR 608] , referred supra, within a period of three months from the date of registration.

¶55

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

PMR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sheshagiri J v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshagiri J v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. R. Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Paramashivaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Valabai Vs the State of Karnataka

Children'S Education Society Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt. Yashodama Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri N Suresh Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer