Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18217 (KAR)

SMT SWEETY SARAF v. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

WP/49969/2017 · 2025-03-28

M G S Kamal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 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. 49969 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SWEETY SARAF, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WIFE OF DEEPAK KUMAR SARAF AT GOPAL MOTOR STORES, NH WAY 31, PO SIMALAGURI BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA DISTRICT ASSAM - 781 313. 2. SRI. DEEPAK KUMAR SARAF, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SON OF KAILASH PRASAD SARAF, AT GOPAL MOTOR STORES, NH WAY 31, PO SIMALAGURI, BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA DISTRICT ASSAM - 781 313. PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. SATISH KUMAR SARAF, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1138, SAMPRADHAYA RESIDENCY 4TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR BENGALURU - 560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 AND: 1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER SANKEY TANK, BENGALURU – 560 020. 2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-1, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. M/S NUGEN DEVELOPERS, A DULY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. D-64, NANDINI LAYOUT, DOLLARS SCHEME BENGALURU - 560 096. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING PARTNERS V RAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF R VENKATACHALA AND D MOHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI DORESWAMY 4. SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI KENCHAPPA, RESIDING AT C/O MUNIYAPPA, FORMER CHAIRMAN MANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 049 ALSO AT: SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI KENCHAPPA, NO.331, 1ST CROSS GOVERNMENT COLLEGE ROAD, OLD EXTENSION, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH.V. CHARATHI ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. BHANU PRASAD ADVOCATE FO R4; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 AND 2 TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS, AS PETITIONERS HAVE INVESTED AND PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE R-3 ALLOTTEE UNDER THE SCHEME OF ALLOTMENT AND ORDER MADE BY THE R-1. 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 Petitioners claim that they are the purchasers of a site bearing No.511/A, BBMP New Municipal No.19/5/11/A situated at Sector 4, Hosur Sarjapura Road Layout (HSR Layout), Bangaluru, having purchased the same in terms of a deed of sale dated 04.05.2015 from respondent No.3-Nugen Developers, who in turn had acquired the same from - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 respondent No.1-BDA on 25.11.2014 as per allotment letter dated 18.10.2014 and possession certificate dated 05.12.2014. 2. Having purchased as above, when the petitioners sought to put up construction over the said site, the petitioners found the very site to be missing. Thereupon the petitioners made representations to the respondent No.1-BDA. Respondent No.1-BDA had indeed commenced the proceedings and had directed action to be taken in the matter. Since there was no further action on the part of the respondent No.1-BDA, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing aforesaid petition seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1-BDA to allot an alternate site in the name of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the averments made in the writ petition submits that since the respondent No.1-BDA does not dispute the allotment of aforesaid site in favour of the respondent No.3, and since the petitioners have purchased the said site in accordance with law in terms of the sale deed referred to above, the respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 No.1-BDA is obligated to consider the request for an alternate site. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-BDA on the other hand submits that there appears to have been certain irregularities in allotting the very site in favour of the respondent No.3 and an enquiry in this regard is being conducted. He submits the petitioners herein who claims to have purchased the said site from the original allottee would also be given an opportunity of being heard and on consideration of the material documents both at the end of the respondent No.1-BDA as well as petitioners appropriate decision in this regard will be taken in the matter. He further submits if it is found site was indeed allotted by the respondent No.1-BDA in favour of respondent No.3, request of the petitioners for allotment of alternate site will also be considered in accordance with law. 5. Submission is taken on record. 6. Petition is disposed of with the following directions; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 (a) Respondent No.1-BDA who is stated to have already in the process of conducting enquiry in the matter shall provide an opportunity to the petitioners of personal hearing and on consideration of the matter, more particularly, with regard to the allotment of site made in favour of respondent No.3 and purchase of the same by the petitioners, pass appropriate order within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (b) It is further made clear that if it is found that the site in question had indeed been allotted in favor of respondent No.3, and if it is available the same shall be handed over to the petitioners, if it is not, appropriate arrangement for allotment of alternate site shall also be made. (c) It is further made clear if upon such enquiry petitioners are aggrieved in any manner, petitioners are at liberty to seek such appropriate - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8711 WP No. 49969 of 2017 remedy as may be available and permissible under law, if so advised. (d) Since parties are represented by their respect counsel, the petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Secretary-I of respondent- BDA with necessary documents on 24.04.2025 without any further notice. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8