B M Shiva Kumar Vs Bengaluru Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

B M Shiva Kumar Vs Bengaluru Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; respondent (BDA) directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025, pass appropriate orders, and inform the petitioners of the outcome within one month from receipt of the order; no opinion expressed on the merits of the compensation claim.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Bengaluru Development Authority) is obliged to consider and reply to the petitioners' representations dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 seeking appropriate compensation for acquisition of their property for development of RPC Layout. +1 more

Court's answer

If a party submits a representation to a public authority, a statutory duty is cast upon that authority to consider the representation and issue an appropriate reply; the possibility that the party is not entitled to the relief sought does not absolve the authority of this duty.

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representations, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the respondent to consider the petitioners' representations dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders.

Key takeaways

The writ petition was allowed and the respondent was directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 within one month of receipt of the order and to inform the petitioners of the outcome.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MANDAMUS - DUTY TO REPLY TO REPRESENTATIONS: Where citizens submit representations to a public authority, a statutory duty is cast on the authority to consider the representation and give an appropriate reply, even if the persons making it may ultimately not be entitled to the relief sought. On that basis, the High Court, without deciding the merits of the petitioners' claim for compensation for land acquired by the erstwhile CITB (preliminary notification 1968, final notification 1972) for RPC Layout, allowed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 and directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the representations dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders, communicating the outcome within one month.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2642 OF 2026 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

B M SHIVA KUMAR S/O MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,.

SRI B S BASANTH KUMAR S/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT: NO.77, 2^ND FLOOR 9^TH CROSS, NEAR NARAYANA SCHOOL, BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGAORE -560026.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ACHAPPA P.B., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026

HC-KAR

ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE LETTER DATED 21.06.2022 AND 11.12.2025, BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY SEEKING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISTION OF PETITIONERS' PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT OF RPC LAYOUT.

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider their representations dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025.

(i) The petitioners claim that land in Sy.No.499 of Kempapura Agrahara Village, Hosahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore, belonged to their ancestors and that there was a partition in the year 1955 in terms of which, the aforesaid property fell to the share of the father of petitioner No.1 and the grandfather of petitioner No.2. They contend that the land was acquired by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (henceforth referred to as ‘CITB’) in the year 1968, in terms of a preliminary notification followed by a final notification in the year 1972.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026

HC-KAR

(ii) They contend that due to the acquisition of the land by the erstwhile CITB the revenue records were not mutated to their name and therefore, no notice was issued to them for payment of compensation. It is claimed that the entire land is acquired and the layout has already been formed, but the real owners of the property were not paid any compensation by either the erstwhile CITB or the respondent. The petitioner No.1 claims that he filed a representation on 21.06.2022 requesting the respondent to grant 40% of developed land in any layout developed by the respondent. The petitioners claim that there was no reply to the representation and therefore, the petitioner is before the Court seeking for direction to respondent to consider the representations.

The petition is opposed by the respondent, who has filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the land in question was already acquired and an award of Rs.69,776.25 was already passed and deposited before the Civil Court on 16.08.1973. He has also claimed that this deposit was made in order to enable the Kathedars to establish their right, title, interest of the property and to receive the compensation.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026

HC-KAR

Therefore, it is contended that there is no duty cast upon the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners.

If the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondent, a duty is cast upon the respondent to consider the representation and issue appropriate reply. It may be that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the representation. Nonetheless, that does not absolve the respondent of its statutory duty to reply to the representations submitted by the petitioners.

Under the circumstances, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation considers it appropriate to direct respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders.

In that view of the matter, the following order is

passed:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026

5 -

HC-KAR

ii. The respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the outcome of such consideration to the

petitioners.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57