- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4336 WP No. 21667 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21667 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE WADERAYYA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT GUDIMAVU VILLAGE KUMBALGODU POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 074. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SRI CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SRI CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BDA TO EXECUTE A REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER CONVEYING THE SCHEDULE SITE. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4336 WP No. 21667 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner being the wife of original allottee namely Waderayya is before this Court, contending that her husband had been allotted a site bearing No.1670/41, measuring 20X30 situated at Kengeri Satellite Town Layout, Bengaluru South Taluk by the then Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board in the year 1977. That the possession of the said property was delivered in favour of the husband of the petitioner. However even after lapse of four decades, the respondent-BDA has not executed the deed of sale is the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the following reliefs: ''Wherefore the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent-BDA to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner conveying the schedule site, in the interest of justice.'' 2. Sri. Keshava Bhat. A, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records more particularly the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4336 WP No. 21667 of 2022 office notings of the respondent-BDA submits that the petitioner has been persistently following up with the matter with the respondent-BDA, who on verification of all possible queries including the claim by any of the legal representatives of the deceased Waderayya-original allottee, who had indeed executed the release deed in favour of the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is rightfully entitled for execution of deed of conveyance in her favour. He specifically points out to paragraph No.200 of the office notings found at page no.85 of the writ petition, which reads as under: "PÀArPÉ 125 gÀ°è PÉAUÉÃj G¥À£ÀUÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉ, 20 X 30Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå 1670/41£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆ® ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ®PÀëöäªÀÄägÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ CUÀvÀå ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ±ÀĮ̪À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ DzÉñÀ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, PÀArPÉ 196 gÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ "¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀÆtð ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÁÝgÉAiÉÄÃ? E®è¢zÀÝ°è FUÀ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉƼÀî®Ä §gÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ? ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀÄAr¹ JA§ÄzÁV DzÉò¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀÆtð ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ºÀAaPÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÁÝgÉAiÉÄà JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß DyðPÀ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ gÀªÁ¤¸À®Ä PÀvÀqÀ ªÀÄAr¹zÉ." 3. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-BDA came to the conclusion as above on verification of the records on they were required to have intimated the petitioner, if there was any - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4336 WP No. 21667 of 2022 amount due payable by the petitioner, which also has not been done at the hands of the respondent-BDA. He submits that should there be any due, the petitioner is more than willing to pay but a direction to the respondent-BDA to execute the deed of sale as sought for be issued. 4. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA submits that after the allotment of the site neither the husband of the petitioner nor the petitioner approached the respondent-BDA. Despite several communication/paper publication issued to them in this regard, they did not even respond. Therefore he submits, the deed of sale could not be executed. Referring to the contents of the office notes he submits now that it is decided to verify if the site value was paid, and if paid, given sometime the case of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders in this regard will be passed. 5. Submission taken on record. 6. Petition is disposed of. 7. On perusal of records and on the submissions made as above, it is clear that there is no dispute regarding the site - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4336 WP No. 21667 of 2022 having been allotted as claimed. From the office notings it appears that the only issue pending is regarding paying of site value, if paid or payable, respondent-BDA to do the needful. 8. Since the matter is pending from longtime petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondent-BDA with all documents supporting her claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. Respondent-BDA shall thereafter consider the same in the light of the office notings produced by the petitioner as per Annexure-D and execute the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner, if she is found otherwise eligible in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of submission of fresh representation as directed hereinabove. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32