- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8632 WP No. 2228 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2228 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: MR G V NAGARAJAN S/O G. VENAKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.267, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CKA, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-3, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8632 WP No. 2228 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO. BDA/DS-3/518/2021-22, DATED 16/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE R3 (ANNEXURE-A). B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE AND FINALIZE THE SENIORITY LIST IN TERMS OF RULE 11(2)(iii) OF THE BDA (ALLOTMENT OF SITES) RULES, 1984 FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES TO OTHER THAN LAND LOSERS OF ARKAVATHI LAYOUT. C) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS ALLOT SITE BEARING NO. 1794/A, 2ND BLOCK, ARKAVATHI LAYOUT MEASURING 9 X 12 MTS AS AN ALTERNATIVE SITE FOR THE UNAVAILABLE SITE BEARING NO. 518, ARKAVATHI LAYOUT 2ND BLOCK MEASURING 9 X 12 MTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Case of the petitioner is that after several attempts for allotment of site, he was allotted a site bearing No.518, Arkavathi layout, 2nd Block measuring 9x12 meters in terms of allotment letter dated 24.06.2006. That the respondent-BDA had undertaken the process of redoing the list in terms of the judgment passed in BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS. While in the process of redoing the list, the site which was allotted to the petitioner was excluded and it proposed that another site No.1794/A situated at II Block, Arkavathi Layout would be allotted. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8632 WP No. 2228 of 2024 However an endorsement dated 16.06.2022 came to be issued by respondent No.3-BDA stating that in the seniority list the name of the petitioner is at Sl.No.188 and that based on seniority, site in Arkavathi Layout would be allotted or alternatively if petitioner submits a representation for allotment of alternate site in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout same would be considered. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that endorsement impugned is contrary to Rule 11 of the Bangalore Development Authority(Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984. He submits the said rule does not contemplate consideration of the seniority from the date of execution of registered lease-cum- sale agreement. All that the said rule contemplates is the number of attempts made. That by the impugned endorsement the respondent-BDA having inserted such a condition which runs country to the statue, cannot be permitted to deny the entitlement of the petitioner. He further submits in any event the impugned endorsement is issued by the Deputy Secretary who has no power under Section 13 of the Bangalore - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8632 WP No. 2228 of 2024 Development Authority Act, 1976. Hence seeks quashing of the endorsement. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-BDA on the other hand submit that after the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy(supra) the process of redoing the allotment has been undertaken. In that four categories of preference have been made, viz (a) the original land losers (b) senior citizens, (c) persons suffering from illness (d) persons in whose favour lease-cum-sale agreement have been executed. It is in these four categories seniority is being considered. It is further submitted the persons like that of petitioner who are only issued with allotment letters, fall in the different category where the seniority is being considered. 4. In response learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that persons as that of the petitioner who has made as many as seven attempts has been excluded and the persons who have made lesser attempt have been allotted sites and executed lease-cum-sale agreement, thereby illegality is committed. He submits even - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8632 WP No. 2228 of 2024 while redoing the list the respondent-BDA is required to follow Rule 11. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-BDA at this juncture submits that given some time respondent-BDA would re- consider the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to have made more number of attempts than the persons who are found in the list, case of the petitioner would be considered in one of those categories. 6. Submission taken on record. Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent- BDA to consider the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the number of attempts made and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40