Dismissed¶71

Sri Sharanappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/3950/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA 'G' category site allotment; Rule 10 Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules 1984; recovery of double the guideline value excluding sital value; liability of original allottee versus subsequent purchaser; Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar Enquiry Committee; Enquiry Case No.471/2020; order dated 25.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.23475/2010 c/w 1032/2006 & 36275/2009; writ of certiorari under Articles 226 & 227; MLA-allottee site No.1190 HSR Layout; COVID-19 recall application rejected; Karnataka High Court writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The directions issued by this Court in the order dated 25.08.2012 contain no requirement that the double-guideline-value amount be paid by the subsequent purchaser; recovery of double the value (excluding sital value) lies against the allottee/original allottee. ¶62

Sri Sharanappa Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether, where an ineligible 'G' category allottee had sold the site, the penalty of double the guideline value was required to be collected from the subsequent purchaser rather than from the original allottee. +1 more

¶62

Court's answer

¶62

Ratio / Principle

The Committee adequately considered the affidavit filed by the petitioner and held that it does not conclusively establish the eligibility criteria for allotment of a site under Rule 10 of the Rules.

¶63

Key takeaways

The petitioner did not contend that he was eligible for allotment of a 'G' category site under the Rules.ratio¶64
The Court was unable to accept the contention that the Committee's order was in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the writ petition.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) No. 3950 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and C.M. Poonacha, J.; oral order per C.M. Poonacha, J.), decided 09.01.2026 — The petitioner, elected MLA from Sindagi Constituency (1999-2004), was allotted 'G' category site No.1190, Sector-III, HSR Layout, Bangalore by the BDA (sale deed dated 15.12.2003) and sold it to respondent Nos.4 and 5 (registered sale deed dated 23.6.2004). Pursuant to this Court's order dated 25.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.23475/2010 c/w 1032/2006 & 36275/2009, the Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar Enquiry Committee scrutinised 'G' category allotments; finding the petitioner's affidavit inconclusive on eligibility under Rule 10 of the BDA (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984, and noting the subsequent purchasers were not parties to the enquiry, it recommended (order dated 04.08.2021) that the BDA confirm the allotment only after collecting double the guideline value, excluding the sital value, from the original allottee; the petitioner's application to reopen/recall was rejected (order dated 11.01.2022). Held: the 2012 directions imposed no obligation on the subsequent purchaser to pay the amount; the petitioner did not contend eligibility; the Committee's orders were neither erroneous nor amenable to interference — writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3950 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI SHARANAPPA THIPPANNA SUNAGARA S/O THIPPANNA SUNAGARA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NEAR TIPPU SULTHAN CIRCLE SINDAGI, SINDAGI TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIREMATH N S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶21

THE SECRETARY JUSTICE SRI D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR INQUIRY COMMITTEE 5TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KHB COMPLEX K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶22

SRI PUNITH K SURANA S/O SRI KEVALCHAND AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶23

SRI HITESH K SURANA S/O SRI KEVALCHAND AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT 53, 5TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK APARTMENTS 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 009

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SMT. ASHWINI H N, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 06.04.2022)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2021 AND 11/01/2022 PASSED IN THE ENQUIRY CASE NO.471/2020 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE JUSTICE, SRI.D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, ENQUIRY, COMMITTEE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-P, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶35

The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

i) quash the order dated 04.08.2021 and 11.01.2022 passed in the enquiry case no.471 /2020 on the file of Hon'ble Justice, Sri D.V. Shylendra Kumar, Enquiry Committee, Bengaluru vide Annexure-P, by issue of writ of certiorari,

¶37

ii) grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶38

The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition

¶39

are that the petitioner, a permanent resident of Sindagi Taluk, Vijayapura District, was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly, Government of Karnataka, in the elections held in the year 1999, and he represented the Sindagi Constituency for the period 1999-2004. The petitioner made an application to the Government for allotment of a site, under the 'G' category, with a request to direct the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] to

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

allot the site and accordingly, the BDA allotted a site No.1190, at Sector-III, HSR Layout, Bangalore, vide sale deed dated 15.12.2003. The petitioner sold the said site in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide registered sale deed dated 23.6.2004.

¶43

Pursuant to the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.23475/2010 c/w 1032/2006 & 36275/2009, a committee was constituted to scrutinize whether the allottees of the 'G' category sites of the BDA were eligible for allotment of sites under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [ BDA Act ] and the rules framed under the BDA Act. The relevant portions of the directions of this Court are as under:

¶44

vi) If the committee is of the opinion that allottees who satisfy the eligibility criteria of the sites to be allotted by the BDA under general allotment rules, such allotments are saved;

¶45

vii) If the committee is of the opinion that any allottee was ineligible for allotment and if such allottee has constructed the building or sold the property to a third party under registered document, in such circumstances the committee shall recommend to the BDA and to the Government to recover double the value of the amount fixed as per the guide-line value for the purpose of registration of such site in that particular layout as on the date of allotment excluding the sital value deposited by the allottees. If the allottees were not eligible and if no construction is made by such allottees, Committee shall recommend for resuming the sites. Based on the recommendation of the Committee

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

BDA shall pass appropriate order in each and every case and if the allotment made to the allottees are saved subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition, BDA shall impose the condition on the allottees or subsequent purchasers not to alienate the property/sites for a period of 10 years from the date of respective allotment.

¶49

viii) Committee is requested to examine all the applications and to make its recommendation within a period of three months from the date of providing all the infrastructure and documents by the BDA and the Government;

¶50

(emphasis supplied)

¶51

Accordingly, a committee headed by Justice Sri D.V.Shylendra Kumar (retd) (as the Chairman of the Committee) issued notices to the petitioner. After service of the notice, the petitioner filed an affidavit, in which he claimed that he was eligible for the allotment of the site. However, the committee, noticing the affidavit, held that the same does not establish conclusively the eligibility criterias for allotment of the site under Rule 10 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984 [ Rules ]. The subsequent purchasers were not parties to the enquiry conducted by the Committee. Hence, the Committee vide order dated 04.08.2021 recommended to the BDA to collect double the value of the amount fixed on the date of the allotment to the original allottee. The relevant portion of the directions are as under:

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In the absence of the allottee having failed to prove the eligibility criteria for an allotment of site, we can pass an order for cancellation and resumption of the site to the Bangalore Development Authority. But the records indicate that the site has already been sold and Mr. Parithosh for Mr.Ashwin Chikkamath, standing counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority agrees to it. In the circumstances, we have an alternative of saving the site by levying the penalty on the original allottee. But, in the absence of the allottee appearing nor giving the particulars of the purchaser and the purchaser's not forthcoming to pay the penalty, we observe that the penalty amount is leviable and collectable only from the original allottee who had the benefit of the site.

¶55

Accordingly, we recommend to the Bangalore Development Authority to confirm the allotment of site and to fulfill the other formalities pending if any, with it, only after collecting double the value of the amount fixed as per the guideline value for the purpose of registration of site as on the date of allotment excluding the sital value deposited by the original allottee, from the original allottee by whatever means available to it to settle the matter under law. Ordered accordingly .

¶56

The petitioner made an application before the committee to

¶57

reopen the enquiry and recall its order dated 04.08.2021. He contended that he could not adequately participate in the Committee's proceedings due to COVID-19. The Committee, vide order dated 11.01.2022, rejected the allottee's request and noted that considerable time was granted to the allottee between the date of the first notice and the date on which the order was passed. The affidavit filed by the allottee was also considered by the Committee.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the

¶62

petitioner that the petitioner, having sold the site, the penalty, if any, was required to be collected from the subsequent purchaser. Reliance was sought to be placed on the order dated 25.08.2012, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.23475/2010. However, a perusal of the directions issued by this Court (the relevant portion of which has been extracted at para 3 hereinabove) clearly indicate that this Court merely directed that if any allottee was ineligible for allotment, construction was put up and the site was sold, the committee was required to recommend to the BDA and Government to recover double the value of the amount fixed as per the guideline value, excluding the sital value deposited by the allottee. There is no order of this Court requiring the amount to be paid by the subsequent purchaser.

¶63

The Committee has adequately considered the affidavit filed

¶64

by the petitioner and has held that it does not conclusively establish the eligibility criteria for the allotment of a site under Rule 10 of the Rules. It is not the contention of the petitioner that he was eligible for the allotment of a 'G' category site under the Rules.

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:1692-DB WP No. 3950 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

We are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that

¶69

the order of the committee is in any manner erroneous and liable

¶70

to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶71

Accordingly, the above writ petition is dismissed as being

¶72

devoid of merit.

¶73

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶74

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶75

vmb/nd List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 04.08.2021 (recommendation to the BDA to collect double the guideline value, excluding sital value, from the original allottee) and 11.01.2022 (rejection of the petitioner's application to reopen the enquiry and recall the order), passed in Enquiry Case No.471/2020, challenged vide Annexure-P by writ of certiorari.¶36
Hon'ble Justice, Sri D.V. Shylendra Kumar, Enquiry Committee, Bengaluru · 04.08.2021 and 11.01.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly, Government of Karnataka, in the 1999 elections and represented the Sindagi Constituency for 1999-2004; he made an application to the Government for allotment of a site under the 'G' category with a request to direct the BDA to allot the same.¶39
Prior proceeding
BDA allotted site No.1190, at Sector-III, HSR Layout, Bangalore, to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 15.12.2003; the petitioner sold the said site to respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide registered sale deed dated 23.6.2004.¶42
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to this Court's order dated 25.08.2012 in W.P.Nos.23475/2010 c/w 1032/2006 & 36275/2009, a committee was constituted to scrutinise whether 'G' category BDA allottees were eligible under the BDA Act, 1976 and its rules; ineligible allottees who had constructed/sold were to attract recommendation for recovery of double the guideline value (excluding sital value), failing which resumption of sites.¶43
Prior proceeding
Committee headed by Justice Sri D.V.Shylendra Kumar (retd) issued notices; the petitioner filed an affidavit claiming eligibility; the Committee held the affidavit did not conclusively establish eligibility under Rule 10 of the BDA (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984; the subsequent purchasers were not parties to the enquiry.¶51
Prior proceeding
In its order the Committee observed (para 13 thereof) that, the site having been sold and the purchaser not forthcoming, the penalty amount is leviable and collectable only from the original allottee who had the benefit of the site.¶54
Prior proceeding
Operative recommendation of the Committee (para 14 of its order dated 04.08.2021): the BDA to confirm the allotment only after collecting double the value fixed as per guideline value, excluding the sital value deposited by the original allottee, from the original allottee.¶55
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied to reopen the enquiry and recall the order dated 04.08.2021, contending he could not adequately participate due to COVID-19; the Committee rejected the request vide order dated 11.01.2022, noting considerable time had been granted and the affidavit had been considered.¶57

Sri Sharanappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sharanappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri. Nataraju

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Igneshamma

Chandrashekar Vs Anbalagan G

Sri K Raju Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs S Imthaiyaz Ismaial @ Imthiaz

Mr S B Prakash Vs the Managing Director Ksrtc