- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 20126 OF 2021 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. DEVAMMA W/O MOHANRAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. 57/35, ‘SHIVAPARVATHI NILAYA’ 3RD CROSS, KALIDASA LAYUT SRINAGAR BENGALURU -560 050 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROD, BENGLAURU -560 020 3. SURABHI SEVA SANGHA (REGD.) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.187, 22ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 082 Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 4. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU -560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4 R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R4 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.09.2021 ANNEXURE-R AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R4 ANNEXURE-R AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.12.2002 ANNEXURE-F FORTHWITH AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner claiming to be the purchaser of a site bearing No.349, old No.423A, measuring '30X40', situated at Sy.No.28, Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in terms of letter of allotment dated 25.09.1995 and consequent execution of the deed of sale dated 01.03.1996 by the respondent No.3-Surabhi Seva Sangha is before this Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 declining the request of the petitioner for allotment of a alternate site, seeking following reliefs: a) Call for records from the 4th Respondent pertaining to the impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021(Ann-R) b) Issue a writ or order quashing the impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021 bearing No.BemAaPraa/AaBhooSvaaAa/139 issued by the 4th respondent (Annexure-R) and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to allot the alternative site in fvour of the petitioner by considering the application of the petitioner dated 16.12.2022 (Ann-F) forthwith, in terms of the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Junjamma and others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608 and in the case of Sri B.S. Sudhakar Shetty Vs.The State of Karnataka and others vide order dated 29.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.33755/2013 (Annexure-V) to meet the ends of justice; c) Pass any other Order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments and grounds urged in the memorandum of petition at the outset submits that the subject matter of this petition is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Junjamma and others Vs. The Bangalore - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 Development Authority and others1 and also by the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.33755/2013 in the case of Sri.B.S.Sudhakar Shetty Vs. the State of Karnataka and others produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. He further submits that only grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner making representations to the respondent-BDA and approaching this Court regarding her entitlement, the respondent-BDA seem to have proceeded to pay the compensation to the original land owners and has thereby denied and declined the remedy which the petitioner is entitled to in terms of the directions issued in the aforesaid order passed in the case of Junjamma and others (supra). He also submits that the petitioner even otherwise cannot be compelled to pay the cost of the alternative site to the present market value while the petitioner has been relentlessly pursuing the matter since the 2002. Hence petitioner seeks for indulgence of this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that the compensation in respect of the land of which the site being claimed by the petitioner has been 1 ILR 2005 KAR 608 in WP.Nos.42483,42517/2002 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 deposited by the respondent-BDA before the Reference Court in the year 2003. He submits that the disbursement of the compensation however has taken place in the year 2013. It is his further submission, that since the compensation is already been paid to the original owner, the requisition of the petitioner for alternative site cannot be considered. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. The admitted facts of the matter being that the petitioner purchased the above site in the year 1996 and the land in which the above site of the petitioner formed part of was acquired by the respondent-BDA in terms of the notifications dated 14.12.2001 and 15.04.2002 for the purpose of formation of Sir. M. Vishveshwarayya Layout. Petitioner had made an application on 16.12.2002 seeking allotment of alternative site. In response on 06.05.2004, the respondent- BDA had indeed called upon the petitioner to submit certain documents. On 30.09.2004, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Junjamma and others (supra), even while upholding the acquisition had reserved liberty to the petitioners therein to register themselves for allotment of alternative site - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 and had issued certain directions to the respondent-BDA to consider such applications. Though the petitioner made several subsequent representations and follow ups it is only on 22.09.2021 that is after nineteen years from the date of first application made by the petitioner for alternate site, the respondent-BDA issued the impugned endorsement intimating that it had deposited compensation before the reference Court as per the judgment dated 10.12.2013 passed in L.A.C.No.58/2009, as such the petitioner was not entitled for the alternate site. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Junjamma and others (supra) at paragraph 57(1)(f) has issued the following direction: ''(f) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site.'' 7. In that view of the matter since the petitioner had made application for allotment of alternate site on 16.12.2002 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 instant and had submitted all the required documents on more than one occasion which was even prior to order passed in the case of Junjamma and others (supra) and the respondent- BDA being completely aware of the pendency of the application of the petitioner ought to have taken steps in terms of the directions issued in Junjamma and others (supra) case. The impugned endorsement now issued is therefore cannot be sustained. 8. In that view of the matter following: ORDER a) Petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021 produced at Annexure-R is quashed. b) Respondent-BDA is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site by considering the application dated 16.12.2002 produced at Annexure-F in the light of observations at paragraph 57(1)(f) of the JUNJAMMA’s case as extracted at paragraph 6 above. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8585 WP No. 20126 of 2021 c) It is further directed that the respondent-BDA shall raise demand for the cost of site as per the rates prevailing in the year 2013. d) Such consideration and demand shall be made within the outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33