- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6990 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. ANASUYAMMA K.S, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O K.S. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY, R/A NO.10, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAPAIAH GARDEN, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.M. RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-I, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.02.2021 AND THE ALLOTMENT BEARING DATED 05.03.2021 VIDE ANNX-S AND T ISSUED BY BDA AND ETC., Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 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 Petitioner is before this Court seeking quash of endorsement dated 22.02.2021 as well as the letter of allotment dated 05.03.2021 produced at Annexure-S and T respectively by which the respondent-BDA informing the petitioner that she has been allotted an alternate site measuring 9 meters x 12 meters has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,10,000/- being the cost of the said site. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that: (a) she is the owner of a residential site bearing No.63 which was originally measuring East to West - 40 feet and North to South 60 feet, forming part of land in Sy.No.34/4 situated at Malathahalli Village, Yeshwantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, having purchased the same in terms of registered sale deed dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 08.03.2001, and that she had put up construction of a house in a portion of the said site; (b) The respondent-BDA acquired the aforesaid land in Sy.No.34/4 in terms of preliminary notification dated 08.04.2003 followed by final notification dated 10.09.2003 for the purpose of formation of Sir M. Visveshwariah further extension Layout, in which the site purchased by the petitioner forms a part of it. (c) Petitioner being aggrieved had preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.14035/2005 seeking direction to the respondents for allotment of alternate site expeditiously. The said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 14.06.2007 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 10.02.2003 and 18.03.2005. (d) In the meanwhile, this Court in JUNJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608 had issued general directions to the respondent-BDA to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 consider the case of the persons as that of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site or for regularization in terms of the directions issued thereunder to allot the very same site, if it does not disturb the overall scheme of development. (e) The Assistant Executive Engineer, West Division, BDA, Bangalore, had issued notice on 20.03.2012 calling upon the petitioner to submit the documents, and a report in this regard was prepared about the existence of residential building of the petitioner on her site purchased as above. (f) Subsequent follow-ups by the petitioner did not yield any result, which constrained the petitioner to file yet another representation on 16.11.2017 and thereafter a writ petition in W.P.No.8243/2018 which came to be allowed on 12.06.2019 directing the respondent-BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner within three months keeping in mind the law laid down in JUNJAMMA's case. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 (g) Non consideration of the same constrained the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings in CCC No.35/2021, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.03.2021 taking note of delay being perpetrated by the respondent-BDA. (h) Thereafter, the respondent-BDA issued impugned endorsement dated 22.02.2021 while purportedly allotting the alternate site had also called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.35,10,000/- towards the cost of alternate site. It is this endorsement, which has been put into question in this writ petition. (i) This Court by order dated 14.02.2025 taking note of the aforesaid events expressing exception to the conduct of the respondent-BDA had called upon the Commissioner, BDA to take necessary action in the matter and to file an affidavit with regard to the action proposed to be taken. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 (j) In response an affidavit dated 24.02.2025 is filed by the Commissioner reiterating his stand, which has been repeated for over two decades, declining to consider the case of the petitioner. However, an additional ground is also sought to be propagated, in that, it is contended that the site in occupation of the petitioner and the ACC shed put up by the petitioner occupies portion of site No.604 and portion of site No.605 which are independent sites. That site No.603 is already allotted and site No.604 is a stray site and site No.605 is a corner site where auction rules will have to be followed. As such, regularization of revenue site in question would not fall within the purview of Section 38-D of the BDA Act. Thus inability is pleaded by Commissioner of respondent BDA to consider the case of the petitioner despite several directions by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter submits that petitioner had been relentlessly approaching the Office of the respondent-BDA as well this Court ever since the year - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 2003, only to receive the response as the one filed in the instant affidavit declining consideration of her request for allotment of the very same site subject to payment of the cost as directed by this Court in JUNJAMMA's case cited supra. He submits that petitioner though has purchased site measuring 60x40, half of which has already been utilized by the respondent-BDA for formation of road and it is only the remaining half, which is in possession of the petitioner. He submits that since the petitioner is having her residential house existing on the subject site and residing therein, a purported allotment of alternate site at a place which is not conducive, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the photographs produced along with the writ petition to point out that alternate site, which is allotted is not feasible or conducive to be occupied and the petitioner is not in a position to shift from her present residence or to construct a new house. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 4. He further submits that allegation of petitioner occupying both site Nos.604 and 605 is incorrect. However, he fairly submits a portion of the wall of the petitioner's property, which would measure 2 feet x 30 feet may fall within the boundaries of site No.605 and that the petitioner would undertake to vacate/remove the said portion in the presence of representatives of the respondent-BDA. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay costs if any for allotment of site, as of the year 2003, when this Court on first occasion had directed the respondent-BDA to consider the application. Delay on the part of the respondent-BDA to consider the application cannot result in consequences of petitioner paying the cost at the present rate. Hence he submits petition be allowed. 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA reiterating the contents of the affidavit referred to above submits that since the petitioner has been allotted alternate site in the very same layout, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 petitioner cannot as a matter of right insist allotment of the very same site, which is presently in her occupation. He submits that reliance placed on JUNJAMMA's case cited supra is of no avail inasmuch as even in the said order this Court had held allotment of the same site to be considered, if it was feasible and did not disturb the alignment of the sites as per the plan. He submits since the petitioner has occupied both site Nos.604 and 605, petitioner cannot be allotted the very same site. As regards payment of cost is concerned, he submits the cost of the site can only be considered from the date of allotment of alternate site, which is of the year 2021, as per the impugned endorsement at Annexure-T. He submits that petitioner is therefore required to make payment of the said amount and therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard Sri.J.M. Rajanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the records. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 7. Records reveal that petitioner has been knocking the doors of this Court from the year 2003 on account of deliberate inaction and apathy on the part of the respondent-BDA in considering her case. Petitioner has acquired the subject site even prior to respondent notifying the lands for acquisition. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of JUNJAMMA has set at rest the controversy regarding the claims made by the persons similar to that of the petitioner with a specific direction to the respondent-BDA to consider their requests for allotment of alternate site and also allotment of very same site, if feasible. Factually and legally things having been settled, all that was required by the respondent-BDA was to consider the case of the petitioner favourably in the light of the directions issued by this Court in JUNJAMMA's case. However, as noted above petitioner was made to run to this Court on more than three occasions spanning over two decades. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 8. The ordeal of the petitioner has been taken note by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 08.03.2021 as per Annexure-R in the contempt proceedings. The said order at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 read as under: "2. This is one more of several cases which have come to the Court which shows that Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') established under the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976, is making the citizens to run from pillar to post. This is one more of several cases where the officers of the BDA have shown scant respect to the orders of the Court which have become final and which are binding on them. 3. On 16th November 2017, the complainant made a representation to the Commissioner of BDA seeking regularization of the building existing in property bearing No.63 and to allot a site to the complainant in lieu of the site which has been used for formation of the road. As the representation dated 16th November 2017 was kept pending, a writ petition was filed on 19th February 2018 which was decided by the judgment and order dated 12th June 2019. The only order passed by this Court was of directing the Commissioner, BDA, to decide the representation submitted by the complainant by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order. On 24th July 2019, a representation was made by the complainant to the Commissioner of BDA enclosing therewith a copy of the aforesaid order, of which breach is alleged. As we have found in several cases, perhaps the representation was thrown into waste paper basket. Thereafter, a second representation was made on 4th February 2020. The copies of both the representations are annexed as Annexures-J and H. Even the second representation was ignored. Therefore, on 11th January 2021, the present petition was filed seeking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 4. Order dated 12th June 2019 was to be complied with within three months from 24th July 2019. The order ought to have been complied with by 23rd October 2019. Thus, the usual excuse of Covid-19 is also not available to BDA. Notice was issued on 18th January 2021 of the contempt. An affidavit was filed by the accused on 24th February 2021 for relying upon a vague endorsement of 22nd February 2021 directing the complainant to remove his existing house and handing over physical possession of the site and to pay a sum of Rs.35,10,000/- being the current value for allotment of alternate site. Shockingly, the current value of the alternate site was mentioned without even disclosing which is the site which was decided to be allotted to the complainant. We do not understand how the price was fixed by the BDA even without deciding the location of the alternate site. Only after the said action was disapproved by the Court, now an affidavit has been filed by the accused placing on record the order of allotment on 5th March 2021. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the site allotted is situated in a remote area which is not at all useful to the complainant." 9. As already noted above, the Commissioner of the respondent-BDA in his affidavit dated 24.02.2025 filed in response to the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Court, has expressed his inability to consider the case of the petitioner only on the ground of petitioner occupying portion of sites bearing Nos.604 and 605 and that petitioner has already been allotted an alternate site. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that only a portion measuring 2 feet x 30 feet of site No.605 has been occupied by the petitioner and that the petitioner would undertake to vacate and remove the occupation of the said portion of site No.605. 11. He further submits that though the site of the petitioner originally measured 40 feet x 60 feet and that the respondent-BDA has utilized half portion of the said site which is 40x30 feet for the purpose of formation of road, petitioner would not seek any compensation or would she seek for enhancement of any compensation. 12. These two submissions are taken on record as an undertaking to this Court. 13. As the petitioner has undertaken to vacate and remove the occupation of a portion measuring 2 feet x 30 feet of site No.605 and consequently no disturbance would be caused in the alignment of formation of sites in the layout, the objection raised by the respondent-BDA for - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 allotting the same site referring to the directions issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in JUNJAMMA'S case cannot be countenanced. 14. Further since the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2005 and this Court by order dated 14.06.2007 had directed the respondent-BDA to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in JUNJAMMA'S case, had the respondent-BDA considered the case of the petitioner, it would have resulted in allotment of site and payment of cost as on that date and not the present date. Issuance of allotment letter has come into existence only upon the petitioner initiating the contempt proceedings that too in the year 2021. The respondent-BDA therefore cannot take benefit of its own inaction, delay and default in calling upon the petitioner to pay the cost of the site at the present rate. In that view of the matter, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 b. Endorsement dated 22.02.2021 and the letter of allotment dated 05.03.2021 as per Annexure-S and T respectively are quashed. c. Respondent-BDA is directed to allot site No.604 to the petitioner which is presently in occupation. d. Simultaneously, on such allotment petitioner shall vacate/remove the construction that falls within the portion of site No.605 as undertaken hereinabove. c. Respondent-BDA shall calculate the cost of the site at 60% of the value as per the rules applicable as on 14.06.2007 when this Court had allowed the first writ petition in W.P.No.14035/2005. d. Allotment shall be made and demand shall be raised as directed above by the respondent-BDA within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall make good the said demand within eight weeks thereafter. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10915 WP No. 6990 of 2021 e. Interim order granted by this Court shall continue till compliance of the aforesaid order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK