Sri Dominic Savio D Souza Vs the Commissioner

SRI DOMINIC SAVIO D SOUZA S/O PETER D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT: VIKHROLI, RAILWAY STATION, G-14, HAZARI BAUG, STATION ROAD, VIKHORLI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-400083.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

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

¶16

DEPUTY SECRETARY-I, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29961 WP No. 10323 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PREVAILING ALLOTMENT PRICE OF RS.51,32,660/- FIXED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER BEARING NO.BDA/DS-3/SMV/3156/2025-26, DATED 03-03-2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has called in question the impugned letter of allotment bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/GPÁ-3/SMVL/1/3156/2025-26 dated

¶25

03.03.2026 in so far as it relates to demanding the present allotment price of Rs.51,32,660/-. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 11.03.2026 to refix the allotment price as prevalent at the time of issuing the letter of intimation dated 23.09.2006 and to execute a sale deed as directed by this Court in W.A.No.659/2025 and W.P.No.53727/2016, which was confirmed in W.A.No.470/2020 respectively, as well as the order passed in W.P.No.34067/2016

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29961 WP No. 10323 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

connected with W.P.No.34068/2016, which was confirmed in W.A.No.1/2020 connected with W.A.No.5/2020.

¶29

(i) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased a site measuring 40 x 60 feet, formed in Sy.No.132 of Ullal Village, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru North Taluk, in terms of a sale deed dated 13.11.1992. The land in Sy.No.132 was acquired for the purposes of formation of Sir M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout. The same was questioned before this Court, which culminated in a judgment reported in Junjamma and Others v. The

¶30

Bangalore Development Authority - ILR 2005 KAR 608 . As per the said order, the respondent passed resolution on subject No.226/2002 dated 10.02.2002 to allot alternate sites to revenue site holders who have purchased sites prior to the preliminary notification. Accordingly, the petitioner was enrolled as a member for allotment of an alternate site after paying the prescribed registration fee.

¶31

(ii) He also filed an application for allotment of an alternate site. After inspection of all the documents, the respondents issued a letter dated 23.01.2006 informing the

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29961 WP No. 10323 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioner to be present at Vajreshwari Theatre on 25.09.2006. The petitioner claims that following the inspection and satisfaction about the documents of the petitioner and his entitlement for allotment of an alternate site an order dated 05.03.2015 was passed to take steps to allot a site measuring 30 feet X 40 feet. Following this, a letter of allotment was issued on 03.03.2026. However, the respondents have demanded a sum of Rs.51,32,660/- being the allotment price payable. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, is before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same issue came up for consideration in W.P.No.53727/2016 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 15.02.2019 directing the price of the allotted site to be determined as on the date of the petitioner's application. He contends that the finding of a Co-ordinate Bench was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.470/2020 and an SLP filed there against in SLA (C) No.3898/2021 was dismissed. He contends that in W.P.No.15269/2024, a Co-ordinate Bench had held that the

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29961 WP No. 10323 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

rate of allotment should be the rate as on the date when the application was filed seeking allotment of an alternate site and this finding was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.659/2025. He therefore prays that the petitioner also be extended the same benefit.

¶39

The learned counsel for the respondents however contended that another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22467/2024 had held that the rate at which the alternate site could be allotted should be reckoned as on the date the decision is passed to allot an alternate site. He therefore submitted that the letter of allotment and the demand of allotment price under the impugned order is just and proper and is in line with the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.22467/2024.

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

The petitioner had submitted his application for allotment of an alternate site on 01.02.2006, but he was registered with the respondents seeking allotment of an

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29961 WP No. 10323 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

alternate site on 22.12.2014, as per the judgment passed in W.P.No.162121-222/2003, Junjamma and Others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority . In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.659/2025 and 470/2020, the respondents were entitled to demand the allotment price as was prevalent as on the date of the registration for allotment of an allotment site i.e. 22.12.2014. If the respondent-BDA has sat over the request of the petitioner for over 12 years, the petitioner cannot be put on the guillotine.

¶45

In view of the above, the impugned allotment in so far as it relates to demanding a sum of Rs.51,32,660/deserves to be set at nought.

¶46

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The petition is allowed ;

¶49

ii. The impugned letter of allotment in so far as it relates to demanding a sum of Rs.51,32,660/is set aside. The respondents are directed to determine the allotment price as on 22.12.2014

¶50

and issue appropriate communication to the

¶51