Smt Shimna v Vs the Commissioner

SMT. SHIMNA V. W/O. MR. DINESH KUMAR P., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.260/A, 4^TH CROSS, GOKULA 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MATHIKERE LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 054

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN (GANAPATHY BHAT), ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK (WEST), BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

THE MEMBER SECRETARY TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU – 560 020

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR EXECUTION OF

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28813 WP No. 3400 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RECONVEY DEED IN RESPECT OF OLD HOUSE / SITE NO.6 NEW BDA APPROVED LAYOUT SITE NO.260/A IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITHIN TIME FRAME PERIOD.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconvey the erstwhile Site No.6, property bearing Municipal No.18, new BDA Site No.260/A, situate at 4^th Cross, Gokul 1^st Stage, 1^st Phase, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet.

¶24

The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the Site No.6 formed in old Sy. No.28 presently situate at 4^th Cross, Gokul 1^st Stage, 1^st Phase, Bengaluru, having received it in terms of a gift deed dated 16.02.2022. The petitioner contends that the land in Sy. No.28 of Gokula was acquired by the respondent No.1 – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of Gokula Layout and since the lands were fully developed, the respondent No.1 - BDA formulated the Scheme

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:28813 WP No. 3400 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

for reconveyance, in terms of which those who had purchased/owned sites in the area demarcated for the layout would be reconveyed the sites subject to compliance of certain conditions. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 - BDA has already taken steps based on her request for reconveyance and the same is evident from the note sheet prepared by the respondent No.1. The petitioner contends that despite the recommendation made by the concerned Officers, no action is taken by the respondent No.1 - BDA to reconvey the site in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for reconveyance of the site owned by her as the entire Gokula I stage Layout is admitted to reconveyance Scheme. He contends that the same is evident from the note sheet prepared by the concerned Officers of the respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.1 has not taken any action to reconvey the site in question to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reconveyance of the site owned by her.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:28813 WP No. 3400 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondents submits

¶34

that if the petitioner is entitled for reconveyance of the site, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶35

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an endorsement dated 15.12.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of respondent No.1 - BDA, which shows that in view of the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent No.1 is unable to take a decision regarding reconveyance of the site in question.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶37

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶38

The note sheet prepared by the officers of the respondent No.1 which is part of the writ petition indicates that the property owned by the petitioner is entitled to be reconveyed under the reconveyance Scheme made applicable to Gokula Layout 1^st Stage, 1^st Phase Bengaluru. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of reconveyance. Now that the officers of the respondent No.1 have already

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:28813 WP No. 3400 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

identified the Site No.260/A and have recommended for reconveyance of the said Site, the respondents shall take further steps to conclude the process of reconveyance. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No precipitative action shall be taken against the property claimed by the petitioner until then.

¶43

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Smt Shimna v. Vs the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shimna v. Vs the Commissioner

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

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