- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12143 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. SRINIVASA RAJU S/O. LATE VENUGOPALA IYENGAR, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI. SUDARSHAN P.S., S/O P.G. SREENATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NORTH DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 032. 3. LOKASEVA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (REGD.), HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560 001, Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …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he petitioner since deceased by his legal representative is before this Court seeking following reliefs: a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement No.BDA/RO/North/22/19-20 dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 20.11.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Annexure 'A'. b) Consequently, issue a writ of mandamus to the First and Second Respondents to register the khatha of Site No.22 in the name of the Petitioner, situated in a layout known as 'Jayasurya Nagar III Phase" Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, with the dimensions mentioned in the Sale Deed and Possession Certificate vide Annexures 'B' and 'C' respectively, or c) in the alternative pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was a member of 3rd respondent Society and he was allotted a site bearing No.22 in a layout formed by the said Society at Yelahanka III Stage, measuring East to West 73.10+74/2 feet and North to South 39.3+50.7/2 feet, in all measuring 3295.5 Sq. ft and the petitioner being in physical possession and enjoyment of the said site had applied for registration of khata in his name. In response to which, the revenue officer of respondent-BDA had issued the endorsement dated 20.11.2019 stating that there is variation in the measurement of the site as shown in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 release order and the deed of sale and further stated that if the rectification is obtained in the sale deed with regard to the measurement as shown in the release order further action will be taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is issued without application of mind and in that, he submits that there is hardly any difference in the measurement given in the schedule of the sale deed dated 25.05.2013 which is described in square foot and the measurements given in the enclosure to the release order dated 10.10.2018, issued to respondent-BDA produced at Annexure-D which is in meters. In furtherance of the same, the counsel for the petitioner refers to the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2025, providing the comparative calculation of measurement found in sale deed as well as in the enclosure to release order dated 10.10.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to para 3 of the said affidavit submits the difference of measurement - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 as given in the sale deed and the release order is only 0.573 Sq. feet. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that the application of the petitioner would be considered afresh. 6. Submission is taken on record. 7. Impugned endorsement reads as under; "F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉÃAzÀgÉ ¤.¸ÀASÉå 22 dAiÀĸÀÆAiÀÄð £ÀUÀgÀ 3 £Éà ªÉøïÖ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¸ÀzÀAvÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ DzÉñÀzÀ°è£À C¼ÀvÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À C¼ÀvÉUÉ ªÀåvÁå¸À«gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ DzÉñÀzÀ°è£À C¼ÀvÉUÉ vÀPÀÌAvÉ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹ ¸À°è¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉåUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ." 8. Comparative measurement of site as given in the affidavit filed by the petitioner with reference to the sale deed and the release order is as under; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 Sale Deed measurement (Annexure -B) (in Feet) BDA measure- ment (Annexure- D)(in Meters) BDA measurement when converted into feet. Difference in measurement (in feet) East to West 73.10+74 2 North to South 39.3+50.7 2 East to West 22.50+22.68 2 North to South 11.96+15.42 2 East to West 73.822+74.413 2 North to South 39.240+50.59 2 >.15+>.11 X 0+>.413 2 2 = 0.13 X .413 2 = .573 sq. ft. NOTE: 1 Meter = 3.281 Feet. Therefore, the difference in dimension shown in Annexure 'B' and Annexure 'D' is .573 sq. ft which is negligible." 9. A perusal of the record would indicate that, it was only an issue of measurement of the site in question in the sale deed dated 25.05.2013, the measurement is given in the form of square foot and in the enclosures to the release order dated 10.10.2018, the measurement is in the form of meters. 10. Without even doing a simple arithmetic calculation, the impugned endorsement has been issued, which clearly reflect the manner in which duty being discharged by the concerned officer leading to unwanted litigations and wasting precious judicial and public time. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the concerned Revenue - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2649 WP No. 12143 of 2021 Officer of respondent-BDA has deliberately negligent of his duties. 11. Even though learned counsel for the respondent-BDA has sought for time to re-consider the application, this Court under the facts and circumstances of the case deems it appropriate to impose cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) on the concerned Revenue Officer-respondent No.2 to be payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. 12. Registry is directed to issue recovery certificate to recover the same from the said concerned Revenue Officer. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8, CT:SNN