- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44401 WP NO.10692 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.10692 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. DR. G. GURUSHANKAR S/O LATE GURUVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO.3601, 70TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 78. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE THASHEELDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44401 WP NO.10692 OF 2022 5. THE BDA TASK FORCE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18TH JUNE, 2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H BY DECLARING THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4-BDA TO CLEAR THE ENCROACHMENT, RESTRAIN THE MISCREANTS FROM BURYING DEAD BODIES IN THE PLOT ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER AND TO PROVIDE SITE IN A PROPER AND LIVABLE CONDITION; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04TH DECEMBER, 2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-J'; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.2.; inter alia sought for direction to the respondent No.4- Bangalore Development Authority to clear the encroachment, restrain the miscreants from burying dead bodies in the Plot allotted to the petitioner and to provide a site in a proper and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44401 WP NO.10692 OF 2022 livable condition by considering the representation dated 04th December, 2020 (Annexure-J). 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the Site bearing No.480 at 4th 'T' Block, Vrushabhavathi Layout, 6th Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru is belonging to the petitioner as per the allotment letter and Khatha Certificate produced at Annexures 'C' and 'D' respectively, however, some of the miscreants are burying dead bodies claiming that the same is a burial ground. In this regard the petitioner came to know about the order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.2. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 4. Sri. Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the respondent No.4- Bangalore Development Authority allotted the Site in question - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44401 WP NO.10692 OF 2022 in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 had committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure-H) holding that the Site in question is reserved in favour of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for Crematorium. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 contended that the allotment letter dated 07th February, 2004 (Annexure-C) has been issued by the respondent No.4 and accordingly, the registered Sale Deed dated 19th October, 2004 was executed in respect of the Site in question in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that, it is the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent- Government and same has to be resolved between them with regard to establishment of crematorium in the Site in question by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 6. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the Site in question has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority, however, the villagers in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44401 WP NO.10692 OF 2022 vicinity are utilising not only the Site in question belonging to the petitioner but also, the adjacent land for cremation of the dead bodies, which is for the public purpose. Accordingly, he sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2. 7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the writ papers, which would indicate that the there is no dispute with regard to the land is being acquired by the Government and made over to the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of Sites. As per the allotment letter dated 07th February, 2004 (Annexure-C), the Site in question bearing No.480 situate at 4th 'T' Block of Further Extension of B.S.K. 6th Stage, Bengaluru was allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the Khatha in respect of the Site in question has been made in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, as the allotment has been made by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to the petitioner having duly acquired the land in a manner known to law, the respondent No.2 had committed an error in interfering with the allotment of the Site in question made in favour of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44401 WP NO.10692 OF 2022 petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to law and same is required to be set-aside. Accordingly, order dated 18th June, 2019 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that, certain tombs are erected in the Site in question belonging to the petitioner as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to clear the tombs if any, erected in the Site in question within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, writ petition is allowed. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10