- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:236-DB WA No.261/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.261/2021 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-1 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020. [ALL THE 3 APPELLANTS ARE NOW REP. BY ALAO DR. B.S. BASANTHI] …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADV.,) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:236-DB WA No.261/2021 AND: SRI. ALAGU SUNDARAM S/O SRI ARJUNAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT/ 3/3, GANAPATHI NAGARA 8TH CROSS ROAD HOSAKEREHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560026. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, ADV., FOR SRI. MADHUSUDHAN J, ADV.,) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.47833/2019 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL. GRANT ANY OTHER SUCH RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIYT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment of the learned Single Judge - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:236-DB WA No.261/2021 holding that the petitioner is entitled to an alternate site is incorrect insofar as there was no request made by the petitioner in the writ petition for an alternate site within the time provided. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that even though the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short 'BDA') required the respondent herein to submit an application for alternate site, before 31.12.2013, no such application was made and that therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that a request had been made as early as on 22.01.2004 for allotment of alternate site and that the contention that there was no application made in Performa cannot be accepted. It is submitted that the fact that a formal application in the Performa provided was not made by the petitioner cannot stand in the way of the allotment of the alternate site to the writ petitioner, in view of the findings of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Junjamma and Others Vs. The Bangalore - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:236-DB WA No.261/2021 Development Authority1, and in Sri Prakash Michael Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority in WP.No.10958/2014 which was decided on 07.07.2014. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the contentions and has specifically found that the respondent herein had made a request for allotment of alternate site as early as on 22.01.2004. It was in the circumstances that the learned Single Judge had found that the writ petitioner had complied with the guidelines issued by this Court in Junjamma's case. Further, it was recorded that a seniority list had been prepared for allotting the alternate site and the seniority of the petitioner is liable to be protected in the said list. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that the sale deed had been executed by the BDA for the alternate site on 01.07.2022. The learned counsel for the appellants 1 ILR 2005 KAR 608 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:236-DB WA No.261/2021 submits that the said sale deed was executed subject to the result of this writ appeal. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and in view of the clear finding by the learned Single Judge that the respondent herein had clearly sought allocation of the alternate site by representation dated 22.01.2004 and that there was a request made by the writ petitioner as early as on 16.04.2003, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in this appeal do not require consideration. The Writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7