- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9744 WP No. 3879 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3879 OF 2022 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. THULASI D/O H.T.GANGADHARASA AGED 62 YEARS, 2. SMT.SHASHIKALA D/O H.T.GANGADHARA AGED 60 YEARS, 3. SRI.H.G.THUKARAM S/O H.T.GANGADHARA AGED 58 YEARS, 4. SMT.SAROJA D/O H.T.GANGADHARA AGED 52 YEARS, 5. SRI.H.G.RAVI S/O H.T.GANGADHARA AGED 49 YEARS, 6. SRI.H.G.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O H.T.GANGADHARA AGED 47 YEARS, 7. SMT.KRISHNA KUMARA D/O H.T.GANGADHARA AGED 41 YEARS, 8. SRI.S.G.SHASHI KIRAN S/O H.T.GANGADHARA, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9744 WP No. 3879 of 2022 AGED 37 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.39, AKKIPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGLAURU-560 020. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI., AGA FOR R1 SRI. K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 13.08.2021 ANNEXURE 0K ISSUED BY THE R3 AND DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITES IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN JUNJAMMAS CASE AT THE PREVAILING ALLOTMENT PRICES DURING THE YEAR 2004 AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE TO THE PETITIONERS. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9744 WP No. 3879 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure ‘K’. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ father was the owner of a revenue site carved out of Sy.No.1 of Jarakabande Kaval Village, Yeshwantpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and by virtue of the acquisition notifications issued, the site became part of the Layout formed by the respondent-BDA. The petitioners approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking grant of alternative site, in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Junjamma And Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Bangalore and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608. However, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the Special land Acquisition Officer stating - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9744 WP No. 3879 of 2022 that in terms of the directions issued in the said judgment, the application was not filed within time. 2. Learned Counsel Sri K.Krishna, appearing for the respondent-BDA would however submit that the acquisition proceedings in this case were initiated in the year 1977 and final notification was issued on 30.08.1979 and the Mahalakshmipuram Layout was formed pursuant to the notifications. Learned counsel would submit that at that point of time, there was no such scheme available to enable the land losers to seek alternate allotment of alternative states. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek the benefit falling out of the case of Junjamma (supra). 3. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the impugned endorsement only says that the application was filed belatedly, having regard to the directions issued in the case of Junjamma (supra), it is clear that the Special Land Acquisition Officer - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9744 WP No. 3879 of 2022 has not applied his mind to the facts of this case. Nevertheless, the Land Acquisition Officer may reconsider the representation given by the petitioners, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-BDA. If it is a case which cannot be considered in terms of the directions issued in Junjamma’s case, then the Land Acquisition Officer shall accordingly proceed to consider the representation given by the petitioners and inform the petitioners regarding the decision taken by the Land Acquisition Officer. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL