- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4117 WP No. 5935 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5935 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. NARASAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(a) S. SIDDAMMA D/O L.K. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 1(b) BYRAPPA S/O L.K. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.129, 7TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE 1ST STAGE, WOC ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. 1(c) LAKSHMAMMA S., W/O LATE K.T. JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.2097/28A, 8A MAIN E-BLOCK, 1ST STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. 1(d) JAYAMMA S. W/O B.P. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.97, 5TH MAIN KEMPEGOWDANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 019. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR P1(a) TO 1(d)) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4117 WP No. 5935 of 2021 AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER BANGALORE - 560 020. 2. THE CHAIRMAN BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-BDA TO ALLOT SITE/S TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE LETTER DATED 14.07.1976 BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER One Smt.Narasamma, original petitioner since deceased being represented by her legal representatives, is before this Court claiming that she was the owner of land in Sy.No.88/3 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated at Saneguruvanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, she having purchased the same from one Rangappa under a deed of sale dated 19.08.1968 which property was notified by the then CITB - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4117 WP No. 5935 of 2021 succeeded by present BDA for formation of West of Chord Road Layout on 10.12.1971. The CITB had passed award dated 23.06.1972. Petitioner thereafter made application dated 25.07.1972 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking re- conveyance of the land. Thereafter petitioner had submitted representations on 08.07.1974, 21.02.1975, 03.03.1975, 07.07.1975, to which the respondent-BDA had issued response as per Annexure-B dated 14.07.1976 acknowledging the land of the petitioner having been acquired. Subsequently petitioner had issued another representation dated 20.08.1976 requesting respondent-BDA to allot six sites to the petitioner and her family members which was not considered and site was not allotted. Petitioner was aged 89 years when she filed the petition and had even submitted the representation as late as 28.01.2020 which had not been considered even after lapse of five decades constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. Statement of objections is filed by Respondent -BDA contending that land was acquired in terms of the notification in the year 1971 award has been passed which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 24.06.1972 for a sum of Rs.14,116.25 and the possession of the land on 09.09.1972 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4117 WP No. 5935 of 2021 and the acquisition had attained finality. It is contended that petitioner was not entitled for any alternate site as there is no provision of law or any resolution having passed by the then CITB. As such consideration of the representation of the petitioner would not arise. Petitioner apparently had filed a suit against the respondent authority in O.S.No.667/1989 which was dismissed on 16.04.1993. Annexure-B which is being relied upon by the petitioner which has been issued is one without authority as there is no resolution providing for allotment of an alternate site. Contending so sought for dismissal of the petition. 3. Heard and perused the records. 4. There is no dispute that the land of the petitioners has been acquired as far as back in the year 1971 and award has been passed in the year 1972. The only relief sought for is for consideration of petitioner's case for allotment of site. Matter even as admitted by the petitioner is five decades old. Representation seems to have been given in the year 1974 which appeared to have been revived in the year 2020. In the meanwhile as pointed out by the learned counsel for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4117 WP No. 5935 of 2021 respondent-BDA a suit had been filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.667/1989 which has resulted in dismissal. 5. In the absence of petitioners pointing out the provisions of law under which they are entitled for allotment of sites as sought for and/or violation/denial of such right by the respondent-BDA, writ petition cannot be entertained. Nonetheless sheer delay of five decades in the absence of any explanation cannot be countenanced. No explanation of whatsoever nature has been stated in the petition or in the representation. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as the same lacks merit. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5