- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12169 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: M/S GREEN CITY CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD., (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANY ACT, 1952), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1142, 35TH CROSS, 26TH A MAIN ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.V.P.KIRAN S/O LATE H.V.PRABHAKARA REDDY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRAMODA GOWDA T.P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU - 560 038. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU- 560 038. 3. THE COMMISSIONER TDR AND LAO, BBMP BENGALURU -560 038. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP BENGALURU - 560 048. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 5. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION RE VALIDATE THE TDR AS UNDER ANNEXURE-F AND R2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF R1 TO SUBMIT THE ENTIRE RELATING FILE AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court claiming to be the purchaser of Transferable Development Rights(for short 'TDR') in terms of deed of conveyance dated 20.01.2015 executed by one Sri.P.Balaraju and his wife Smt. Savithramma and others is before this Court seeking following reliefs: ''a) Issue of Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the representation to revalidate the TDR as under Annexure-F, and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the request of 1st Respondent to submit the entire relating file as per Annexure- G. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 (b) Issue such other Writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.'' 2. The case of the petitioner is that in lieu of the acquisition of the property belonging to said Sri.P.Balaraju by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP') for the purpose of widening of Medahalli to Belathur Road (Dommasandra) to Devasandra to Kodigehalli Road, vide notification dated 14.02.2013 the said Sri.P.Balaraju and other were issued with Development Right Certificate as per Annexure-C by the BBMP on 10.04.2014. The said Sri.P.Balaraju and others not being able to utilise the said TDR had sold the same for the valuable sale consideration to the petitioner herein. 3. That the said TDR certificate was valid upto 06.07.2018, as per Annexure-E and thereafter it was the respondent-BDA which was the Competent Authority to renew/revalidate the TDR certificate issued by the BBMP. He submits that the petitioner had made representation to the respondent-BDA as per Annexure-F seeking revalidation of the TDR certificate. In response to which, an Internal Office Note - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 was circulated as per Annexure-H by the Office of the BBMP and the Concerned Officer of the BDA. Whereby the BDA appeared to have sought for furnishing of the relevant records from BBMP. It appears, thereafter certain complaint/objections were raised by the aforesaid Savithramma disputing the transaction and claiming her entitlement on 26.12.2019, consequent upon which a FIR was registered before the Anti- Corruption Bureau in Crime No.8/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 and Under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) read with Section 34 IPC and matter was accordingly referred to the Lokayuktha. In furtherance to which, the documents pertaining to aforesaid complaints were taken on P.F.No.55/2022 and it is submitted that the matter is still under investigation by the respondent-Lokayuktha. 4. Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Pramoda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that transaction under which the petitioner acquired TDR certificate is valid and subsisting. There is no reason/justification in respondent-BDA not revalidating the TDR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 certificates. He further submits that the petitioner have no other options but to approach this Court seeking the directions as sought for. 5. In response, Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that in the light of serious allegations involving breach of trust and forgery and fabrications of the documents made by said Savithramma resulting in registration of the crime as above and the same being pending investigation by the Lokayuktha under the P.C. Act, 1988, the respondent-Authority may not be in a position to re-validate the TDR as sought for by the petitioner, unless and untill the private dispute and criminal case are disposed of/resolved in the manner known to law. He further submits that that the very process of issuance of TDR by the Officers Concerned belonging to the BBMP is being question. Therefore, unless and untill the cloud regarding the same is cleared, the respondent-BDA do not have any legal obligation to comply with the requisition made by the petitioners to re-validating the TDR certificate. 6. Heard and perused the records. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 7. This Court by order dated 26.05.2023 had directed the Joint Commissioner of the respondent-BBMP to comply with the communication produced at Annexure-H, which pertains to forwarding of the documents in respect of the matter at hand. Thereafter, by order dated 25.10.2023, this Court had directed the respondent No.4 to file an affidavit regarding non- compliance of the said direction which is reiterated by the order dated 30.10.2023. In furtherance thereof an affidavit is filed duly sworn to by one Dakshayini, Joint Commissioner of BBMP, Mahadevapura Zone stating that the subject matter of the writ petition pertains to ledger DRC No.003777, Folio No.132 regarding issuance of TDR and that the entire file is in the custody of Anti-Corruption Bureau, as the same is pending investigation in view of the allegation of fraud made in the complaint and has thus expressed inability to comply with the earlier directions of this Court. 8. Though the petitioner claims to have purchased the TDR, from the aforesaid Sri.P.Balaraju and his wife Savithramma and others in terms of the deed of sale dated 20.01.2005, referred to hereinabove, there appears to have been private dispute raised by Savithramma on the allegations - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 of fraud and fabrication. This has now blown into a criminal case resulting in registration of criminal case in Crime No.8/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 and Under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) read with Section 34 IPC before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and now transferred and pending investigation before the Lokayuktha. 9. Under these complex and disputed facts situation of the matter, this Court do not see justifiable reason to show indulgence in favour of the petitioner, at this juncture to direct the respondent-BDA to consider the representation as sought for. However, the fact remains the petitioner has indeed purchased the TDR in terms of sale deed which is a registered document which is stated to be subsisting and same has not been challenged or cancelled. 10. Therefore in the circumstances, the respondent-BDA is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner after conclusion of the enquiry which is currently being conducted by the Lokayuktha in the aforesaid Crime No.8/2020 in which the records are ceased in P.F.No.55/2022. It is made clear, such - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3614 WP No. 12169 of 2021 consideration by the respondent-BDA shall be in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, if required. 11. Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation upon conclusion of the enquiry. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3