- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48679 WP No. 6944 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K.M. GEETHA W/O SRI. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.132, SRI. SRIKANTESWARA NILAYA MAHARAJKATTE MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN HOUSING VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY KUMARA PARK SEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU -560 020. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48679 WP No. 6944 of 2020 3. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GNEERAL A & E RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M.G. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DEPRIVING THE PETITIONER FROM HER SITE BEARING NO.369 IN THE LAY OUT FORMED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 SOCIETY IS ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE IN THE LAY OUT FORMEDBY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 - SOCIETY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48679 WP No. 6944 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that Respondent No.2 – BDA is depriving the petitioner as to use and enjoyment of Site No.369, situated within the layout formed by Respondent No.4 – Society. 2. Heard Sri. Rajendra M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State; Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2; Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri. M.G. Ramakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No.4 – Society allotted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48679 WP No. 6944 of 2020 Site No.369, situated at Arehalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, to the petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.1993 (Annexure–A). Thereafter, a possession certificate dated 10.06.1998 (Annexure–B) was issued in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the BBMP has interfered with the said site and has put up a temporary structure on the petitioner’s property. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, this Court directed the respondent–Corporation to file a status report regarding Site No.369 belonging to the petitioner. In compliance, the learned counsel for the respondent–Corporation has filed a memo along with relevant documents. On a careful examination of the memo, it is seen that Site No.369 is vacant. Though a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48679 WP No. 6944 of 2020 temporary road was earlier constructed over it, however, it is noted that, as per the layout plan approved by the BDA, Site No.369 remains vacant. 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents shall not interfere with Site No.369 belonging to the petitioner. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19