- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8701 WP No. 7936 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7936 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: K S NAGESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O K S SATHYANARAYANA M/s SINDOOR TEXTILES, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER IN LIEU OF THE SITE ACQUIRED AND CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.11.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8701 WP No. 7936 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Case of the petitioner is that his father Sri.K.S.Sathyanarayana Setty, who had purchased sites bearing Nos.22, 23, 29 and 30 forming part of Sy.No.34/2A in Marenahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, from one Sri.K.Varadaraju in terms of deed of sale dated 13.12.1963. That on 30.11.1967 the then City Improvement Trust Board had acquired the aforesaid land for the purpose of formation of Sarakki Layout between Kanakpura Road and Bannerghatta Road. That the then CITB had assured and represented the father of the petitioner that he would be allotted alternate sites. A letter confirming the same had even been issued by respondent-BDA as late as on 24.04.1984 produced at Annexure-E. That the father of the petitioner passed away on 29.12.1988 leaving behind the petitioner as his sole legal heir. That the petitioner pursued the matter with the respondent- BDA for allotment of alternate site in lieu of aforesaid four sites acquired by respondent-BDA vide letter dated 26.11.2015 at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8701 WP No. 7936 of 2016 Annexure-F which has not been considered. Hence, the petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition submits persons similarly situated as that of petitioner and father of the petitioner had been allotted alternate sites from respondent-BDA. Therefore on the principles of parity, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his representation. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-BDA at the outset submits that there was no scheme for allotment of any alternate site and that petitioner has approached this Court explicably inordinate delay. Even if the petitioner is claiming on the principles of parity he ought to have approached within a reasonable time. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. The documents enclosed to the petition indicate father of the petitioner had indeed purchased the sites in terms of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8701 WP No. 7936 of 2016 deed of sale dated 13.12.1963 from the erstwhile owner of the said land Sri.Varadaraju whose name is reflected in the notification at Sl.No.248. Respondent-BDA is stated to have issued certain communication as per Annexure-E addressed to the father of the petitioner intimating inclusion of his name in the list of revenue site holders. It is based on these materials the petitioner is insisting for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 6. Perusal of the objection statement and document enclosed at Annexure-R1 dated 14.06.1988 would indicate that after completion of acquisition process compensation amount of Rs.28,242.03 in respect of subject land has been deposited before the Civil Court in terms of Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. If the compensation is deposited what remains is to consider whether the petitioner whose father claims to have purchased the property had received the compensation or not. If the compensation has not been received, petitioner is always entitled to seek release of the said compensation. 7. However, since learned counsel for petitioner insisted that persons similarly situated as that of the petitioner has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8701 WP No. 7936 of 2016 been allotted alternate sites, this Court is of the view that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation with necessary particulars as to purported allotment of sites stated to have been made by respondent- BDA to the persons who were similarly situated as that of the petitioner. Said representation be made within sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner makes such representation providing such details as contended above, respondent-BDA shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 8. It is made clear that since the award amount is already stated to have been deposited before the Civil Court under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as seen in communication dated 14.06.1988, petitioner is at liberty to claim release of said compensation if not claimed by anyone else. 9. This liberty of filing fresh representation is reserved only since petitioner is claiming relief on the principles of parity and subject to petitioner furnishing the particulars within the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8701 WP No. 7936 of 2016 time stipulated above and same shall not be construed as creating any fresh rights, in favour of the petitioner. Petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4