Disposed

Smt. P Devaki v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/24148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Committee recommendation rejecting their claim to sites bought from Rajanna in Sy.Nos.54 and 55/1, Srirampura Village, because their sale deeds omitted survey numbers. The court found Rajanna's own sale deed identified the survey numbers and was recited in their deeds, remanded the matter to the Committee for re-examination, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the Committee for re-examination in light of sale deed dated 08.02.1995; petitioners to appear on 22.07.2026.

Smt. P Devaki Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35509-DB WP No. 24148 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.24148 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. P DEVAKI W/O K GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.71, 3^RD CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, DR SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR, HEGDENAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560077

¶12

SMT. PADMAMALINI G RAO W/O T GOPALAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, SWATHI APARTMENTS, 4/1, RATNAVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. SAVITHA PARTHASARATHY W/O SRI PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MARAPPA GARDENS, CHURCH ROAD, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560046

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. VIKRAM A HUILGOL SR. ADVOATE FOR SRI. ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

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

¶19

HONBLE JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVA NARAYANA COMMITTEE,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35509-DB WP No. 24148 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

HAVING OFFICE AT KRUSHI BHAVAN, 4^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENT BY CHAIRMAN (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.03.2026)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE,)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE 2^ND RESPONDENT - COMMITTEE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN CASE KNKC NO.143/2022, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXUREA, ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶30

The writ petition has been filed impugning the recommendation of the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee dated 29.05.2025 on claim of the petitioners that their sites, which they had bought from one Rajanna in Sy.Nos.54 and 55/1 of Srirampura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under registered sale deeds dated 17.03.1995, 30.03.1995 and 08.05.1998, whereas

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35509-DB WP No. 24148 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Mr.Rajanna had bought the said land vide sale deed dated

¶34

08.02.1995 and the said sale deed is mentioned in the recital of three (3) sale deeds.

¶35

2. The Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee

¶36

only on the ground that the sale deeds executed by Mr.Rajanna in favour of the petitioners do not mention the survey number, would not suggest that sites were not sold to the petitioners from the land in Sy.Nos.54 and 55/1, however, it appears that the Committee has not looked into the sale deed dated 08.02.1995 in favour of Mr.Rajanna, which specifically mentions the Sy.No.54 measuring 12 guntas and Sy.No.55/1 measuring 3 guntas.

¶37

3. When the said sale deeds dated 08.02.1995 executed in favour of Rajanna finds mention in the recitals of the three (3) sale deeds, we are of the opinion that by not mentioning survey number in the three (3) sale deeds executed in favour of petitioners by Rajanna, would not make any difference.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35509-DB WP No. 24148 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

4. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the

¶41

Committee to re-examine the issue in the light of sale

¶42

deed dated 08.02.1995 executed in favour of Mr.Rajanna.

¶43

5. With the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ

¶44

petition. The petitioners shall appear before the Committee again on 22.07.2026 . The petitioners are at liberty to produce any other evidence on which they wish to rely on in support of them.

¶45

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶46

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt. P Devaki v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P Devaki v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Vs D S Basawaraj @ Basavrajappa

The Excutive Engineer Vs Smt P T Mallamma @ P T Mallaka

The Excutive Engineer Vs Chandramma

Smt. Deepika. P. R. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sooraj Jain Vs Sri Abhinandan N Ballal

The Chairman Vs Sri Prathap Kumar Singh