- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24694 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. V. DORAISWAMY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT I FLOOR, 58, AREKERE MICO LAYOUT II STAGE, IIMAIN, II CROSS OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. 2. MR M SOUNDARARAJAN S/O LATE R. RAJU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT "SATHYA KRUPA" 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR HOSUR-635 109 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. 2. MICO NAUKARA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 3. EARLIER KNOWN AS MICO SHARMAJEEVI KARMIKARA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA NO.341/24/1, OPP ULUCHUKAMME CHOULTRY 8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-560 027. SMT. RAMANI PREMALATHA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS DAUGHTER OF J.W. DAVID R/AT CMC KHATHA NO.352/1 II STATE, AREKERE MICO LAYOUT, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI. P. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-H HEREIN); DIRECT R-1 TO REVISE THE LAYOUT PLAN (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THE PRESENT PETITION) PERTAINING TO THE LAYOUT IN WHICH THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO IDENTIFY THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS A RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND ETC. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Petitioners claim to be purchasers of site bearing No.1-A, measuring East to West (26+24)/2 feet, and North to South 42 Feet in all 116.66 square yards bounded on the East by: Site No.1, West by Private land, North by 1st stage and South by: Road, in terms of deed of sale dated 23.07.2004 from one R.Vasudev Murthy. 2. That the aforesaid site purportedly forms part of a residential layout known and called as Arakere MICO layout/Arekere II Stage Layout, Bannerghatta, Bengaluru, which was formed by the respondent No.2 -Society in the lands bearing Sy.Nos.22/1, 22/2, 111/1 and 111/2 of Arakere Village, Begur Hobli, in terms of a layout plan approved by respondent- BDA vide Resolution dated 25.04.1987 and that the respondent No.2-Society had originally allotted the said site in favour of said R.Vasudev Murthy. 3. The case of the petitioners is that there was a road earlier shown in the layout, portion of which was converted into two sites by the respondent No.2-Society. The aforesaid site is one of the said two sites allotted to aforesaid R. Vasudev Murthy, from whom the petitioners purchased the same. It is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 further case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2-Society had obtained release of the said sites from the respondent-BDA represented by its Assistant Engineer enabling the respondent No.2-Society to sell the same to R. Vasudev Murthy-vendor of the petitioners. 4. Things stood thus, when the petitioners attempted to put up construction on the site so purchased, one Smt. Ramani Premalatha had filed a suit in O.S.No.9388/2004 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction which came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2011, declaring that the schedule property is a road and that the petitioners herein who are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit had no right to put up constructions thereon. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have filed a regular first appeal in R.F.A.No.1216/2011. In the meanwhile, petitioners herein had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition in W.P.No.9066-67/2018 seeking direction to the respondent-BDA. By order dated 18.07.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the respondent-BDA to consider the representation made by the petitioners taking into consideration the earlier letter dated 07.11.1999 that had been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 issued by the respondent-BDA releasing the sites/plot. However, the respondent-BDA by the impugned communication declined to consider the said representation by holding that in the plan which was sanctioned by the respondent-BDA in favour of respondent-Society, 18 meter wide road was provided which has been encroached upon by carving out and earmarking the aforesaid site bearing No.1A and that the impugned endorsement that was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer releasing the site was one without authority. As such, declined to consider the said representation. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the petition vehemently submits that once the respondent-BDA had accepted the legitimacy of carving out of the site No.1-A by issuing a communication at Annexure-F, it was obligated on the part of the respondent-BDA to modify the plan, instead of declining to consider the representation on the premise of the Officer who had issued the same had no authority. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in furtherance to submissions of respondent-BDA, apart from having statutory authority to modify the sanction plan was also obligated to do the needful as required by the petitioners relies upon the following judgments: (i). K.A. Prabhakar Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others decided in Writ petition No.21762/1993 on 12.01.1998; (ii). The Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sumitradevi reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1386; (iii). Mohanlal J. Jain and another Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority decided in Writ petition No.36829-830/2013 on 27.03.2014. (iv). Smt. Savitramma. P Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others decided in W.P.No.15399/2015 on 17.03.2016. 7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent- BDA submits that the plan was issued at the instance of respondent No.2-Society who has not sought for modification of the said plan till date. Petitioners being the subsequent purchasers from original allottee cannot seek for modification of the plan and no modification can be accorded at their instance as a matter of right. Modification of the sanction plan is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 therefore impermissible. However learned counsel for respondent-BDA submits that if respondent No.2-society at whose instance sanction plan was issued, makes an application the same would be considered if permissible under law. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners at this juncture points out that the respondent No.2-Society had indeed made an application seeking approval of the modified plan and release of the aforesaid sites. That this Court by order dated 19.07.2022 had indeed directed the respondent-BDA to produce the original records pertaining to the present case and said order has not been complied till date. He further submits that if a direction is issued to the respondent-BDA to verify the records and reconsider the representation of the petitioners with reference to application made so by the respondent No.2-Society purpose of the petition would be served. 9. Heard. Perused the records. 10. The endorsement in principle issued by the respondent -BDA reads as under: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 ¨ÉA.C.¥Áæ/£À.AiÉÆÃ.¸À/CCF-53/MIS-2472/1401/2018-19. Date: 05/11/2018 EªÀjUÉ ೕಮ, ವಷ ವಣ ೌಡ ರವರು. || ೕ ೋ ¥Ámïð£Àgïì Advocates and Solicitors, £ÀA. 35/2, 2 £Éà ªÀĺÀr - ಕಂಾ ! ರೆ", ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560052. #ಾನ %ೇ «µÀAiÀÄ: - &ೆಂಗಳ)ರು ದ+ಣ ,ಾಲೂ.ಕು, &ೇಗೂರು ೋಬ0, ಅರ2ೆ%ೆ ಾಮದ ಸ4ೆ ನಂ.22 ಮತು" ಸ4ೆ ನಂ. 11 ರ6. || ೖ2ೋ ೆ8.9.:.ಎ<. ಪರ4ಾ> #ಾಪ?ತ ಬ@ಾವAೆ ಅನುBೕದCೆ ಬೆD. G¯ÉèÃR:- 1. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ W.P. No.9006-9007/2018, ¢£ÁAPÀ. 18/07/2018 gÀ DzÉñÀ 2. ತಮE ಮನF ಪತ GCಾಂಕ:03/10/2018, 3. ಆಯುಕ"ರು, &ೆಂ.ಅ.Jಾ. &ೆಂಗಳ)ರು ಇವರ ಆLೇಶ ¢£ÁAPÀ. 23/10/2018. ೕಲNಂಡ Fಷಯ2ೆN ಸಂಬಂO:ದಂ,ೆ ಉQೆ.ೕಖ (2) ರ ತಮE ಪತದ6. ತಮE ಕ+Lಾರ%ಾದ ೕ. F.Lೊ%ೆಾST ಮತು" ಎಂ.ೋಮಸುಂದರ! ರವರು GCಾಂಕ:03/08/2011 ರಂದು #ಾಪ?ತ ಬ@ಾವAೆ ನUೆಾ> ಸ6.:ದV ಅWಯನು ಇನೂ ಇತ ಥಪ?:ದ 2ಾರಣ W.P. No.9006-9007/2018 ರ ಆLೇಶದಂ,ೆ ದೃZೕಕೃತ ಪ ತಲು[ದ 2 ಂಗಳ ಒಳೆ Cಾ ]ಾಲಯದ ಆLೇಶದಂ,ೆ ಕಮವ^ಸುವಂ,ೆ 2ೋರQಾ>Lೆ. ಪ_ೕ6ಸQಾ>, &ೇಗೂರು ೋಬ0, ಅರ2ೆ%ೆ ಾಮದ ಸ4ೆ ನಂ.22 ಮತು" ಸ4ೆ ನಂ.111 ರ6. &ೆಂಗಳ)ರು ಅ`ವೃGa JಾO2ಾರGಂದ । ೖ2ೋ ೆ8.9.:.ಎ<. ಪರ4ಾ> ಅನುBೕದCೆ]ಾದ ಬ@ಾವAೆಯ 18.00 Tೕ. ಅಗಲದ ರೆ"ಯ6. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 ಒತು"ವ_ #ಾ? 4ೇಶನ ಸಂbೆ :1-ಎ ಅನು ಅನOಕೃತ4ಾ> ಸಾಯಕ 2ಾಯJಾಲಕ ಅ`ಯಂತರರು ಾಗೂ 2ಾಯJಾಲಕ ಅ`ಯಂತರರು ೕ?ರುವcದನು ಾಗೂ 4ೇಶನ 9ಡುಗ@ೆ #ಾ?ರುವcದನು ಗಮಸQಾ>Lೆ. ಸದ_ ಪLೇಶದ6. JಾO2ಾರGಂದ #ಾಪ?ತ ಬ@ಾವAೆ ನUೆೆ &ೆಂಗಳ)ರು ಅ`ವೃGa JಾO2ಾರದ 2ಾdV 1976 ಕಲಂ 32 ರನSಯ ಅನುBೕದCೆ ಪ@ೆಯLೇ 4ೇಶನ ಸಂbೆ :1-ಎ ಅನು ಬ@ಾವAೆಯ6.ನ 60' ರೆ"ಯನು ಒತು"ವ_ #ಾ? 9ಡುಗ@ೆ #ಾ?ರುವcದು 2ಾನೂನು &ಾ^ರ4ಾ>ರುತ"Lೆ. ಅನುBೕGತ ಬ@ಾವAೆಯ 4ೇಶನಗಳನು ೊರತುಪ?: ಇತ%ೇ ]ಾವcLೇ 4ೇಶನಗಳನು 9ಡುಗ@ೆ #ಾಡಲು ಅವ2ಾಶFರುವcGಲ. ಾಗೂ ಅನುBೕGತ ಬ@ಾವAೆಯ6.ರದ 4ೇಶನಗ0ೆ bಾ,ೆ Cೋಂದe #ಾ?ರುವcದು ಸಹ ಯಮ &ಾ^ರ 2ಾಯ4ಾ>ರುತ"Lೆ. PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå FRN 904476 (W.P. No.9006-9007/2018) gÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ಅನOಕೃತ4ಾ> 4ೇಶನ ರg: 9ಡುಗ@ೆ #ಾ?ದ ಸಾಯಕ 2ಾಯJಾಲಕ ಅ`ಯಂತರರು ಾಗೂ 2ಾಯJಾಲಕ ಅ`ಯಂತರರ ೕQೆ ಸೂಕ" ಕಮ ಜರು>ಸಲು ಾಗೂ bಾ,ೆ ರದುV#ಾಡಲು, ಅ`ಯಂತರ ಸದಸ ರು ಕಮ ವ^ಸಲು ಸೂg:ರು,ಾ"%ೆ. ೕಲNಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ ^ನQೆಯ6. #ಾಪ?ತ ಬ@ಾವAೆ ನUೆೆ JಾO2ಾರದ 2ಾdV 1976 ರ ಕಲಂ 32 ರಂ,ೆ ಅನುBೕದCೆ ಇಲ.Lೇ, 4ೇಶನಗಳನು 9ಡುಗ@ೆ #ಾ?ರುವcದು ಾಗೂ bಾ,ೆ #ಾ?ರುವcದು 2ಾನೂನು &ಾ^ರ ಕಮ4ಾ>Lೆ. ಾಾ>, ಈ 2ಾಯ2ೆN 2ಾರಣಕತ%ಾದ ಸಾಯಕ 2ಾಯJಾಲಕ ಅ`ಯಂತರರು ಾಗೂ 2ಾಯJಾಲಕ ಅ`ಯಂತರರ ೕQೆ ಯ#ಾನುಾರ ಕಮ ಜರು>ಸಲು ಅ`ಯಂತರ ಸದಸ ರು, &ೆಂಗಳ)ರು ಅ`ವೃGa JಾO2ಾರ ಇವ_ೆ ಸೂgಸQಾ>Lೆ. ೕಲNಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ ^CೆQೆಯ6. ೕವc #ಾJಾಡು ನUೆ ಅನುBೕದCೆಾ> ಸ6.:ರುವ ಅWಯನು ಪ_ೕ6ಸQಾ>, ,ಾವc - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 2ೋರು"ರುವ 4ೇಶನವc ಅನುBೕದCೆಯದ ಬ@ಾವAೆಯ6. ಪಾ"[:ರುವ 18.00 Tೕ. ರೆ"ಯ6. ಬರು"ರುವ 2ಾರಣ, jೕಜCಾ ದೃklಂದ ರೆ" mಾಗದ6. 4ೇಶನವನು ಅಳವ?: #ಾಪ?ತ ನUೆ ಅನುBೕGಸುವcದು ಸೂಕ"ವಲ.ದ 2ಾರಣ ತಮE ಮನFಯನು ರಸN_ಸQಾ>Lೆ. ತಮE FnಾS:. ನಗರ jೕಜಕ ಸದಸ ರು (¥Àæ) &ೆಂಅJಾ, &ೆಂಗಳ)ರು. 11. Perusal of the above endorsement would indicate that the respondent -BDA has rejected the representation made by the petitioners on the premise that document at Annexure-F that was purportedly issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer is not in accordance with law as he did not have any authority to issue the same. That without approval to the modified sanction plan from the respondent-BDA as required under Section 32 of the BDA Act, the Executive Engineer could not have issued the release order. 12. From the facts narrated above and on perusal of the aforesaid reasoning in the impugned order and the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent-BDA, it is clear that petitioners claim to have purchased sites bearing No.1-A based on a purported modified sanction plan, which according - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 to the impugned endorsement has not been approved by the respondent-BDA. However, in view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for respondent-BDA that the request for modification of the sanction plan not having been made for on and behalf of the respondent No.2-society, the modification cannot be accorded at the instance of the subsequent purchaser as that of the petitioners and that if such a request was made on behalf of respondent No.2-Society, the same would be considered if permissible under law. Learned counsel for petitioner as noted above insists that Annexure-F came to be issued at the instance of respondent No.2-Society an application of which is very much available in the records of the respondent-BDA which has not been submitted before this Court till date. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with the following directions; (a) If the respondent No.2-Society has already made representation seeking modification of layout plan and if such representation is not considered till - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7936 WP No. 24694 of 2019 date, the respondent-BDA shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. (b) Alternatively, if such application is not made, the petitioners herein are at liberty to cause respondent No.2-Society to submit such application seeking approval of modification of the layout plan and if such application is made same shall be considered by the respondent -BDA as expeditiously as possible. (c) Respondent-BDA shall give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, respondent No.2-Society as well as respondent No.3 before passing any order on such representation. (d) The aforesaid consideration shall be made notwithstanding the issuance of the impugned endorsement dated 05.11.2018 at Annexure-H. Accordingly petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30