Smt. T. S. Prasanna Lakshmamma Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:28476 WP No. 1950 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1950 OF 2026 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. T.S. PRASANNA LAKSHMAMMA W/O. SRI. T.S. RANGANATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 361, 4^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, RHCS 2^ND STAGE, A BLOCK, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SUPRITHA K.H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 020, by REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - III COURT OF KARNATAKA THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶14

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

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. ANUSHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28476 WP No. 1950 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31-12-2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF PETITIONER REVENUE SITE BEARING NO.92 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider her representation dated 31.12.2025 and allot alternative site in lieu of revenue site No.92 belonging to the petitioner. She has sought for a direction to the respondents to implement the order bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/¨sÀÆ¸ÁéC/3945/2010-11 dated 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.3.

¶24

The petitioner contends that she was the owner of revenue site No.92 formed in Sy.No.47/1 situated at Gidadakonenahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. She contends that the land in Sy.No.47/1 was acquired by the State Government for the formation of Sir M. Visheveshwaraiah layout. It is further contended that a division bench of this Court in Junjamma and others Vs. Bengaluru

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28476 WP No. 1950 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Development Authority - ILR 2005 Karnataka 608 upheld

¶28

the acquisition and directed that revenue site holders who had purchased their properties prior to the issuance of the acquisition notification are entitled to allotment of alternate sites. She contends that pursuant to the judgment in Junjamma ' s case, she filed an application seeking allotment of an alternate site. She claims that despite submitting representation, the respondents have not considered the same and therefore, seeks a direction from this Court. She further contends that the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 31.12.2010 recommending allotment of a site measuring 30 x 40 feet in her favour and that the said recommendation is yet to be approved by respondent No.1. She therefore, prays for a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and approve the recommendation made by respondent No.3.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶30

above contentions and prays to allow the writ petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

¶32

claim of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law and if the petitioner is entitled for allotment of an alternate site,

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28476 WP No. 1950 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

same would be considered. She also submits that recommendation made by respondent No.3 will be placed before respondent No.1 and suitable orders be passed in accordance with law.

¶36

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off. Having regard to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Junjamma referred supra, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site in the light of the said judgment. Respondent No.1 is also directed to consider the recommendation made by respondent No.3 vide order dated 31.12.2010 and pass appropriate orders regarding allotment of an alternative site to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶38

HJ

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt. T. S. Prasanna Lakshmamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. S. Prasanna Lakshmamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Anil Prakash Thumbapuri Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. Veeranagowda Mali Pateil @ v. S. Patil Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

K Vidyashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Sundararami Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vijayarajashekhar Vs the Commissioner