- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8736 WP No. 22344 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 22344 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: H. JAGANNATH S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS NO129, 2N 'H' MAIN 11TH BLOCK, II STAGE NAGARBHAVAI BANGALORE-560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THE THEN CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD(CITB) BDA PRECINCTS, 5TH MAIN ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-BDA TO COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER BY ALLOTTING AN ALTERNATE EQUIVALENT EXTENT IN LIEU OF ILLEGAL ALLOTMENT BY THE RESPONDENT -BDA TO THE EXTENT MEASURING 9 FT INTO 48 FT EQUAL 432 SQ FT AT SITE NO. 320, 19TH E MAIN, 1 N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010 OR, TO PAY MONETARY COMPENSATION FOR THE LIKE SUM DTD 10.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE -P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8736 WP No. 22344 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents to compensate the petitioner by allotting an alternate equivalent extent in lieu of illegal allotment by the respondent of site bearing No.320, measuring 9X48 feet totally measuring 432 Sq.Ft, 19th E Main, 1st N Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 or to pay monetary compensation as per the representation dated 10.06.2020 produced at Annexure-P. 2. Case of the petitioner is that site bearing No.320, measuring 9X48 feet totally measuring 432 Sq.Ft, 19th E Main, 1st N Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 had been allotted to one S.T. Nagaraj in terms of letter of allotment dated 12.06.1963 by the then City Improvement Trust Board. That though measurement of the site indicated was North to SOuth 30 Ft, East to West 45 Ft. It was found that the measurement of the said site was North to South 40 Ft and East to West 48 Ft and accordingly possession certificate was issued on 23.05.1966. That the respondent-BDA had executed deed of sale dated 02.12.1974 by receiving additional amount for additional extent of land. The said site was subsequently - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8736 WP No. 22344 of 2023 purchased by the petitioner in terms of deed of sale dated 20.12.1974, petitioner thereafter obtained sanction plan and construct the building on the said property. That an adjacent site bearing No.321, had been allotted in favour of Smt. Narasamma which was measuring North to South 30 Ft and East to West 45 Ft which was purchased by one M. Manjunath. That the said M. Majunath had filed a suit in O.S.No.1620/1994 alleging that additional extent of 9 feet measuring North to South and 48 feet East to West was in possession of the petitioner. As such, sought for relief of declaration and possession to the said extent of the property. That during the pendency of the said suit without notifying the petitioner, respondent No.1 had issued an endorsement dated 28.01.2001 stating that there was a mistake in the measurement of the site of the petitioner and had unilaterally issued rectification deed dated 08.06.2001 rectifying the measurement of the property belonging to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.15198/2001 questioning the said unilateral action of the respondent-BDA in rectifying the deed of sale. Petitioner also filed a counter suit in O.S.No.10866/1998 against the plaintiff in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8736 WP No. 22344 of 2023 o.s.No.1620/1984 for relief of injunction in respect of 8 feet by 48 feet of his property. The said three suits were clubbed. Decree in O.S.No.1620/1984 was passed directing the petitioner to deliver the possession of 8 feet by 48 feet. Suit in O.S.No.15198/2001 was disposed of holding that the further proceedings by the respondent-BDA subsequent to endorsement dated 28.01.2001 is incorrect and illegal and further concluded that the action of the respondent-BDA in unilaterally rectifying the deed of sale without notice to the petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner preferred a Regular First Appeal in R.F.A.No.228/2008 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1620/1984 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 19.04.2018 against which the petitioner preferred to file appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was also rejected. 4. That since the respondent-BDA had received the additional sale consideration in respect of the additional extent of land as per the C.D. Report and had executed the deed of sale to the extent of 40 feet by 48 feet and in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15198/2001 by holding that the action of the respondent-BDA in unilaterally rectifying - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8736 WP No. 22344 of 2023 the deed of sale was incorrect, the petitioner gave the representation dated 10.06.2020 to the respondent-BDA seeking to compensate the loss suffered by the petitioner during the aforesaid acts of the respondent-BDA. However, no action has been taken by the respondent-BDA till date. Hence, the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent-BDA had conveyed the additional extent of land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner by receiving the entire sale value to the extent of 40 feet into 48 feet, which was purchased by the petitioner paying the full consideration thereof and in view of the unilateral rectification to an extent of 9 feetX48 feet has been reduced, resulting in loss to the petitioner to be compensated suitably by the respondent-BDA. 6. Counsel for the respondent -BDA submit given some time, case of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. 7. Hence, following; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8736 WP No. 22344 of 2023 ORDER 1. Petition is disposed of. 2. The respondent-BDA shall consider the representation dated 10.06.2020 as per Annexure-E of the petition and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter if the petitioner is found eligible appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. 3. Such orders shall be passed within an outer limit of four (4) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 183