Sri T R Gangadharaswamy Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

SRI T R GANGADHARASWAMY S/O. LATE T.G. RANGASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 716, 2^ND 'D' MAIN, III STAGE, 3^RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. (BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - 1, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

T.R.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, S/O LATE T.G.RANGASHAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO.37, 32^ND MAIN ROAD, CHINNAPPA NAIDU LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶16

…..RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:29055 WP No. 1532 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. LAKSHMEESHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI NIRUPAN GOWDA H N, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/BDA TO CONSIDER AND ADJUDICATE UPON THE CLAIM AS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A i.e., THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.11.2025 WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and adjudicate his claim vide representation dated 18.11.2025 and to direct the respondents not to disburse the award/compensation till the adjudication of his claim.

¶26

2. Petitioner claims to be the joint owner of the property bearing Survey No.106 totally measuring 5 acres 20 guntas situate at Kenchanapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was acquired by the joint family in the name of his father, mother and brother in terms of the sale deed dated 07.12.2006, 07.04.2007 and 07.04.2007

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29055 WP No. 1532 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

respectively. Petitioner contends that the above land was acquired under the provisions of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, for the formation of Sri Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. Later, the parents of the petitioner had relinquished their rights to an extent of 2 acres 8 guntas in favour of his brother, namely, Respondent No.3 herein in terms of release deed dated 14.10.2022. The Respondent No.3, thus, applied for sanction of incentive sites and the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, BDA) issued a memorandum granting incentive sites to the Respondent No.3 in respect of 2 acres 8 guntas. Petitioner contends that the remaining portion belongs to him and his other family members. He contends that his father died on 10.07.2025 and his mother died on 16.07.2025, leaving behind him and his family members to succeed to the estate. He contends that since he was entitled for the compensation in the form of incentive sites, he enquired with the BDA and found that the Respondent No.3 being the coowner had requested for sanction of the incentive sites in his favour and that the BDA had recommended for release of the sites in favour of Respondent No.3 vide Memorandum dated 24.09.2025. The petitioner claims that he being one of the legal

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:29055 WP No. 1532 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

heirs of Sri.Rangashamaiah and Smt. Narasamma is entitled to claim the compensation in the form of sites.

¶34

3. The petitioner contends that he submitted a

¶35

representation before the BDA on 18.11.2025 to stall the allotment and release of sites to the Respondent No.3 alone. He contends that the respondent No.2 did not take any action on the representation and therefore, he is before this court.

¶36

4. The writ petition is opposed by the Respondent No.3 who contends that the land in Survey No.106 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas is in 3 parts of which, 2 acres 8 guntas belongs to the Respondent No.3. It is contended that the Respondent No.3, being a beneficiary under the Release Deed dated 14.10.2022, became the absolute owner of 2 acres 8 guntas in Survey No.106 of Kenchanapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is contended that the remaining 3 acres 12 guntas stood in the name of the father and mother as well as the Respondent No.3. Therefore, it is claimed that the Respondent No.3 is entitled to one third share in the aforesaid extent, as he is also a lawful heir having succeeded to the estate of his father and mother along with his other siblings.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29055 WP No. 1532 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

5. It is contended that the Respondent No.3 being the

¶40

owner of one third share in 3 acres 12 guntas, is entitled to receive the compensation while his other siblings including Respondent No.3 are entitled to receive two third share in 3 acres 12 guntas of land. It is therefore contended that the relief sought for by the petitioner, cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition and the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition and there is no cause of action against the respondents.

¶41

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 reiterated the above submissions.

¶42

7. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 18.11.2025 and adjudicate upon the claim raised by him in his representation, the respondent has no authority in law to decide an inter-se dispute between the petitioner and the Respondent No.3 regarding their respective entitlement of the incentive sites for the acquisition of their land in Survey

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29055 WP No. 1532 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

No.106. However, having regard to certain admitted facts, it is imperative that the dispute is disposed of. The petitioner does not dispute that the Respondent No.3, their father and mother had purchased the land in Survey No.106 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that 2 acres 8 guntas out of the aforesaid extent was released to the Respondent No.3 by the parents of the petitioner vide release deed dated 14.10.2022. As regards 3 acres 12 guntas, it is more than evident that the petitioners and the Respondent No.3 are joint owners. Since the entire extent of land in Survey No. 106 is acquired, the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3 and their siblings are entitled to the sites that may be sanctioned by the BDA in lieu of cash compensation payable. Therefore this writ petition deserves to be disposed of, directing the respondent No.1 to allot the incentive sites in the name of the petitioner to an extent of 2 acres 8 guntas and in the joint names of petitioner, his siblings and respondent No.3 in respect of 3 acres 12 guntas. It is open for the petitioner, his siblings and Respondent No.3 to work out their entitlement in a civil suit. This will be complied by Respondent No.2 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:29055 WP No. 1532 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

8. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above

¶50

terms. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court will not impact the right of Respondent No.3 or the petitioner and they are bound to establish the same before the appropriate Civil Court.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

DH

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri T R Gangadharaswamy v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T R Gangadharaswamy 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

Smt B Mangala Gowri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. C. Krishne Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Gangadhareshwara Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri K a Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v M Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

Smt Akkamma Vs the State of Karnataka