- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 32524 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SHAHEEN FATHIMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O. MR. MOHAMMED YOUSUFF RESIDING AT NO.5/1, STEPHENS ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005. 2. MRS.NAGEENA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O MR.AMMANULLAH KHAN R/AT. NO.8, AHMED SET ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005 3. MR.FIYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL VAHAB R/AT. NO.40/2, STANDAGE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005. 4. MR. SANAULLAH KHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O RASHEEDULLAH KHAN R/AT.8, AHMED SET ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005. 5. SRI. CHERIKURI SRINIVASA RAO S/O SRI MALAKONDIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO G-2, GAYATHRI CUTE, KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD,BENGALURU - 570008 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI.ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. NO.102, M. RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560008. 6. SMT. B.RAJESHWARI D/O. SRI. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. NO.27, 5TH 'D' MAIN, 4TH CROSS, HRBR 2ND BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BEGALURU-560043. 7. SRI. P.V.BALAJI, S.O. SRI P. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. NO.27, 5TH D MAIN, 4TH CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BEGALURU-560043. 8. SMT. V GAYATHRI, W/O. SRI.ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NO.102, M. RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560008. 9. SRI. THARUN KUMAR S/O. SRI. ASWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, M. RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. LEELA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. 3. THE JUSTICE KESHAVANARAYANA COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1, SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION OR ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2024, IN KNKC NO.237/2022, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Shorn off thickness of the case paper book, the essential grievance of the petitioner is as to non- regularisation of the structure allegedly built on the subject property, either by deleting the same from the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 acquisition process or otherwise integrating it with what is now structured as layout in the making. 2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not aware of the acquisition proceedings commenced by virtue of Preliminary Notification dated 03rd February 2003 resulting into a Final Notification dated 23rd February, 2004 and that the very scheme underwent some modification, way back in June, 2014; when the erstwhile owner, i.e. the vendor of the petitioner had sought for some relief at the hands of Hon'ble Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee, relief could not have been denied to them on the ground that they had already sold the property by registered Sale Deed dated 18th July, 2013 inasmuch as under the scheme of Sections 54, 55 & 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there is a duty cast on the vendor to vouch the title of the subject property in favour of the vendee. This aspect, according to the counsel, having not been properly appreciated by the Committee, there is error apparent on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 the impugned order warranting interference of Writ Court for undoing the injustice. 3. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority and Justice Keshavanarayana Committee, and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent, resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. They contend that it was the bounden duty of the seller of the land as to disclose to whom he had sold the property to; this having been suppressed, no relief can be granted to a person who has approached the Committee with soiled hands. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under for the following reasons: 5. The subject land is comprised in the acquisition process even in the modified scheme of June, 2014, is not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 in dispute; there is some evidentiary material on record that arguably vouches the stand of the petitioner that a structure has been brought up in the subject site and that various developments have taken place in the vicinity of the land in question warranting a second look as to whether the said part of the land be deleted from the acquisition process or at least the structures brought up in the vicinity be examined for being integrated in the Layout in the making. The Committee, with due respect we observe, missed this aspect of the matter while considering the application of the erstwhile owner of the subject property who had approached it under the shadow of an order secured in Writ Petition No.56686 of 2018 disposed of on 27th September, 2021. This, it could not have done, merely because the erstwhile owner ceases to be the owner of site in question because of some conveyance; there being a duty on the part of the vendor to vouch the title of subject property in favour of the vendee. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 6. We have yet another reason to make the observation as above: where an application is made by the vendor, the outcome of the application, if were to be positive, would have enured to the benefit of the vendee because of doctrine of feeding the tilte by estoppel or akin doctrine regardless of invokability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act in stricto sensu. An argument to the contrary, learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar would submit, would be bereft of justice which a welfare State likely Article 12 entity should not venture to do. That being said, we do not agree with Sri D.R. Ravishankar that this Court itself should accomplish the task which the Committee should do again in accordance with law since a host of factors enter the fray of doing it. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part. A writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; Matter is remitted to the Hon'ble Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee for consideration afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6331-DB WP No. 32524 of 2024 It is open to the Committee to solicit and to the petitioner to produce any material or furnish any information that would be relevant for due consideration of the remand. All contentions of the parties are kept open. The remand, as requested, to be heard and disposed of within an outer limit of six months and the result of the consideration would be informed to the petitioners by Speed Post. The petitioners through their Advocate, are put to notice to appear before the Committee on 06th March, 2025 and seek orders at the hands of the Hon'ble Committee. Till decision is taken by the Committee and it is communicated to the petitioners, the status-quo would continue qua both the sides. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4