- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17607 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI BORAIAH S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.524, 9TH CROSS ROAD 2ND MAIN ROAD, KAVIKA LAYOUT MARUTHINAGARA, BAPUJINAGARA BENGALURU-560 026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX 3RD FLOOR, RISALDAR STREET SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION CIRCLE Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002 REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALE, AGA FOR R3 SRI.B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE VIDE NO.BDA/OOKA-3/T-10/2022.23 DATED 07.04.2022 IN VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.06.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted a site bearing No.475 measuring 11.60 meters x 4.10 meters situated at Arundhathi Nagara slum, Chandra layout, Bangalore by the respondent No.1-BDA in terms of letter of allotment dated 31.01.2007. After allotment the respondent No.1-BDA had executed a deed of sale dated 19.07.2007 and khatha was also registered in his name and the petitioner thus being absolute owner of the property continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 2. When things stood thus, the respondent No.4-BBMP had handed over the property including the site belonging to petitioner to the respondent No.2- Karnataka Slum Development Board for the purpose of construction. Accordingly respondent No.2-Karnataka Slum Development Board has put up construction thereon, thus the petitioner is before this court alleging encroachment of his property by the respondent No.4-BBMP and respondent No.2-board, seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice vide No. BDA/OOKA-3/T- 10/2022-23 dated 07/04/2022 in Vide Annexure K. b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 23/06/2021 Vide Annexure J. c) Pass any order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the writ petition also relies upon the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.673/2023 and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 submits that under similar fact situation of the case, this Court had directed the respondent No.2-Board to deposit the cost of the site with Respondent No.1-BDA and Respondent No.1-BDA was further directed to allot an alternate site to the petitioner. Relying upon the same learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case of the petitioner is also similarly situated, he may be extended similar benefit. 4. Sri K. Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1-BDA at the outset relying upon Rule 11-A of the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules submits that admittedly the petitioner was handed over the site, by executing the deed of sale on 19.07.2007, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of same. Thus the Respondent No.1-BDA has completed its obligation in allotting the site conveying the title as required under law and the Respondent No.1-BDA has no control of the same. He further submits, admittedly encroachment is stated to have been made by the Respondent No.4-BBMP and the respondent No.2-Karnataka Slum Development Board in the year 2016. Therefore, the Respondent No.1-BDA cannot be called upon to allot the alternate site in the fact situation of the matter. He submits that the reliance placed on by the counsel - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 for the petitioner on the order dated 10.04.2024 in WP.No.673/2023 is factually distinguishable and therefore not applicable to the present case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4- BBMP on the other hand submits that when the land was utilized there was no document justifying the title of the petitioner, no claim is put forth before the Respondent No.4- BBMP till date. He however submits that if representation is made by the petitioner along with the supporting documents, the case of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2-Karnataka Slum Development Board on the other hand submits that they have put up the construction based on the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Respondent No.4- BBMP and Board and they are not responsible for claim of the property as being made by the petitioner. 7. Heard. Perused the records. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 8. Admittedly petitioner was allotted a site, possession was handed over and deed of sale was executed by the respondent No.1-BDA as far back as in the year 2007. 9. Rule 11-A of the BDA rules reads as under: 11-A. Allotment of alternative site. - Where the Authority is unable to hand over possession of a site allotted under these rules to any allottee, due to stay orders of the Courts or for any other reason, the Authority may allot an alternative site to such allottee, subject to the following conditions. – (1) An alternative site may be allotted only where the mistake was on the part of the Authority while making the allotment of sites or where possession of the sites allotted originally could not be given to the allottees due to stay orders of the Courts or due to other disputes. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid Rule in the fact situation of the matter, would make it clear, that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to have protected and preserved his property. Reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.04.2024 in the WP.No.673/2023 is distinguishable in that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 there was no sale deed executed by the Respondent No.1-BDA and Respondent No.1-BDA still had not conveyed the right, title and interest in favour of the petitioners. The facts therein are distinguishable from facts of this case in the light of Rule 11-A referred to hereinabove. 11. Therefore, there is a considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-BDA. As such the respondent No.1-BDA cannot be directed in this matter to allot an alternate site. Nevertheless the allegation is that Respondent No.4-BBMP and the RespondentNo.2-Karnataka Slum Development Board have encroached upon the subject property and put up a construction. The relief sought against the Respondent No.1- BDA therefore cannot be considered. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file representation along with the necessary documents before the respondent No.4-BBMP who shall on the examination of the facts pass appropriate order. 12. In other words if the BBMP has utilized the property belonging to the petitioner they shall compensate in accordance with law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8613 WP No. 17607 of 2022 13. If the petitioner is unable to establish his right thereof, liberty is also reserved further to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7