- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6366 WP No. 20560 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 20560 OF 2023 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI RAJAN A P S/O LATE PARTHA SARATHI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO. 91, 1ST CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD 5TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HEMALATHA B.V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MULTI-STORED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BDA BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHA RAYA LAGALI AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.A GOPI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 07.06.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-L FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6366 WP No. 20560 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner claiming to have obtained a decree for specific performance in a suit in O.S.No.1309/1990 against the erstwhile owner namely Smt. Venkatamma and others in respect of land bearing Sy.No.44/5B to an extent of 1 acre and 38 guntas of land which was subject matter of acquisition by the respondent-BDA in terms of preliminary notification dated 19.01.1989 and final notifications dated 19.01.1994 for the purpose of formation of Gnanabarathi Layout is before this Court seeking following reliefs: ''a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction to Respondent to consider representation dated: 07.06.2023 vide Annexure-L filed by the Petitioner. b) Allow this Writ Petition, grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice & Equity.'' 2. Smt. Hemalatha B.V., learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing submits that though the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale on 08.05.1988, which is much prior to issuance of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6366 WP No. 20560 of 2023 preliminary notification, deed of conveyance was effected in the name of the petitioner only in the year 2016, pursuant to the decree passed in the aforesaid suit. Thereafter, the petitioner being entitled for allotment of a site under the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1989') made representation on 07.06.2023 as per Annexure-L, inasmuch as neither the petitioner nor his vendor have received any compensation from the respondent-BDA. However, respondent-BDA has not issued any response either accepting or declining the said representation. Hence, the petition. 3. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA rises two objections, one is that in the decree dated 15.01.2005 which is said to have been obtained by the petitioner herein, there are four original plaintiffs. Since the plaintiff No.4 is deceased, he is represented by his legal representatives. However, only one plaintiff is before this Court as a petitioner; the other objection is that if at all petitioner is entitled for allotment of incentive sites, petitioner has to establish that the land was voluntarily - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6366 WP No. 20560 of 2023 handed over to the respondent-BDA and that there was no challenge mounted to the acquisition process. In this regard, he refers to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. 4. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits except the petitioner herein all other co- plaintiffs are no more and that the plaintiff is only entitled for benefit arising out of the acquisition, either by way of an allotment of incentive site or the compensation as the case may be. She also submits that there has been no challenge to the acquisition and handing over the property was voluntary. Hence she seeks for direction. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. In the light of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, petition is allowed. 7. Respondent-BDA is directed to consider the representation dated 07.06.2023 produced at Annexure-L. That apart petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6366 WP No. 20560 of 2023 within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the prescribed format, if any. 8. The respondent-BDA shall take into consideration of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter and on satisfying of the requirements for allotment of incentive sites as found under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989, including obtaining such undertaking or indemnity as may be required from the petitioner and pass appropriate order within an outer limit of eight weeks thereof and communicate the said order in writing. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15