- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8690 WP No. 19456 of 2024 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. 19456 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI MAHABALESWARA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O SRI SANANIAH # 2, 17TH CROSS 17TH MAIN ROAD K P AGRAHARA MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE - 560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR APARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETATY -III BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR APARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI .,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8690 WP No. 19456 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 18.04.2024 AT ANNEXURE-R, HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER IN BEARING NO. BEMPRA/VIBHUSWAA/73/24-25 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 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking quash of the endorsement dated 18.04.2024 at Annexure-R and for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents to allot alternate site in terms of final report dated 10.03.2015 submitted by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-K and the Board Resolution dated 30.01.2006 vide subject No.23/6 as per Annexure-D and the Board Resolution dated 04.07.2006 vide subject No.102/2006 as per Annexure-E. 2. Case of the petitioner is that one Sri.H.Lagumaiah the erstwhile owner of a site bearing No.12/2 measuring 3225 sq. ft. forming part of land in Sy.No.23 Malagala Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 10.03.1982 and an affidavit of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8690 WP No. 19456 of 2024 declaration dated 10.03.1982 in respect of the said site in favour of the petitioner. That the said site has been utilized by the respondent-BDA in the year 2005 for formation of outer ring road connecting Magadi Road and Mysore Road without acquisition and without payment of compensation. That by resolution dated 30.01.2006 vide subject No.23/2006 it was resolved that the persons who have lost their land/site would be allotted alternative site. Similar resolution was passed on 04.07.2006 vide subject No.102/2006. Petitioner had made representation on 18.09.2013 regarding his site having been utilized for formation of ring road and had sought for allotment of alternate site either in the Nagarbhavi I stage or II stage. By a notice dated 05.02.2015 petitioner was called upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer-respondent No.2 to furnish the documents which was submitted by the petitioner on 06.02.2015. An enquiry was conducted regarding entitlement of the petitioner. A report dated 10.03.2005 recommending allotment of alternate site to the petitioner was made. 3. Petitioner had earlier filed writ petition in W.P.No.2735/2017 which was allowed on 06.12.2022 directing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8690 WP No. 19456 of 2024 the respondent to consider the representation. Non- consideration of the said representation, constrained the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings in CCC No.136/2024. On 18.04.2024 endorsement came to be issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner during the pendency of contempt proceedings. Accordingly contempt proceedings were dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement. Hence, the petition. 4. It is contended that persons similarly situated with that of the petitioner have been allotted sites and the petitioner has been singled out subjecting him to discrimination. That since the respondent-BDA had already passed resolution and submitted a report making out the entitlement of the petitioner as such they could not have issued endorsement at Annexure-R merely because the petitioner is claiming right in terms of the GPA and the affidavit. That the petitioner is entitled for alternate site in the same layout on principles of parity. 5. Heard. Perused the endorsement. The only reason assigned in the endorsement is that the petitioner has not produced documents of his title except producing General - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8690 WP No. 19456 of 2024 Power of Attorney and the affidavit. The respondent-BDA to appreciate that the petitioner claims that a General Power of Attorney dated 10.03.1982 and the affidavit cum declaration dated 10.03.1982 has been executed in his favour by erstwhile owner. The endorsement does not refer to any claim made by the said erstwhile owner either for compensation or allotment of alternate site. If there is no claim from anyone and if the petitioner satisfies his entitlement in accordance with law, respondent-BDA is required to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent -BDA submit given some time, case of the petitioner would be reconsidered in accordance with law. Hence, following; ORDER 1. Petition is disposed of. Impugned endorsement dated 18.04.2024 at Annexure-R is quashed. 2. The respondent-BDA shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternate site. If the petitioner is found eligible appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8690 WP No. 19456 of 2024 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 SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 221