- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8733 WP No. 13063 of 2023 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. 13063 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI VISHWAKUMAR N, S/O LATE NANDIGIRIYAPPA N AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.248, NANDINIVAS, AKKITHIMMANAHALLI LAYOUT, 7TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI N S BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (OLD CITB) T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K P WEST, BENGALURU -560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 15.05.2000, 14.06.2000 AND 22.7.2000 AS PER ANNEXURE-M, N AND P AND TO GRANT/ALLOT/RE CONVEY THE LANDS TO AN EXTENT OF 848.60 SQ YARD TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8733 WP No. 13063 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner herein claims to be the grand son of one T.Siddabasappa who was the owner in possession of Sy.No.86, measuring 37 guntas situated at Akkithimmanahalli. The said T.Siddabasappa passed away on 12.01.1966. His wife Smt. Basamma who inherited his estate also passed away on 22.03.1978 leaving behind their only daughter Smt. Parvathamma as their legal heir. Said Smt. Parvathamma stated to have married to one Nandagiriyappa. Both Nandagiriyappa and Parvathamma also passed away on 26.09.1980 and 31.03.1991 respectively leaving behind petitioner herein as sole surviving legal heir. 2. It appears the City Improvement Trust Board had formed Akkithimmanahalli in the year 1963 acquiring the aforesaid land in Sy.No.86 to the extent of 37 guntas. That on negotiation, discussion and consultation, the CITB had finally agreed to reconvey 80% of 37 guntas of land so acquired, and a resolution in this regard had been passed on 13.09.1968 vide subject No.357. The said resolution stated to have been modified subsequently on 10.12.1969 in terms of which, an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8733 WP No. 13063 of 2023 extent of 3581.6 square yards of land was agreed to be re- conveyed in the name of the grand mother of the petitioner namely, Smt. Basamma. However, the said resolution had not been implemented constraining Smt. Basamma to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1518/1970. 3. It is contended that the then Chairman of CITB had filed a memo on 15.06.1972 undertaking to re-convey 80% of the land as agreed in favour of Smt.Basamma. That in view of the said memo, the above writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, it is contended, that the CITB on 01.05.1973 had executed an agreement to reconvey an extent of 3581.6 square yards of land and since there were certain discrepancies a rectification deed was also executed on 26.04.1975. In terms of the said agreement and the rectification deed, 18 sites were re-conveyed measuring total to an extent of 2733 square yards as against 3581.6 agreed earlier leaving out requirement of conveying the balance extent of land measuring 848.6o square yards. It is this issue which has been lingering over the decades. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8733 WP No. 13063 of 2023 4. Sri. N.S.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several representations were made during the lifetime of Basamma, thereafter by her daughter and then by the petitioner, but to no avail. He referred to representations dated 12.05.1998, 15.5.2000, 14.06.2000 and 22.07.2000 produced at Annexures-L, M, N and P, wherein repeated requests are made to reconvey the balance extent of 848.60 square yards of the land to the petitioner. Hence, he submits inaction on the part of the respondent -BDA who has succeeded to the office of CITB has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Sri. G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits efforts are being at the office of respondent -BDA to trace the files, inasmuch as the transaction in question seem to have transpired during the then CITB regime. He submits non-availability of the records at the hands of the respondent -BDA is the handicap in not passing the any orders on the representations so made by the petitioner. He however submits that the appropriate decision in the matter will be taken given some time. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8733 WP No. 13063 of 2023 6. Submission is taken on record. 7. Since the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court as far as back in the year 1972, followed by purported agreements and rectification deed and also reconveyance of some portion of the land, this Court finds it appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the respondent- BDA, who shall consider the representations taking into consideration of the transaction referred to hereinabove and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing the appropriate decision in the matter shall be taken within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU