- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48161 WP No. 23685 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 23685 OF 2022 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SHREE VIJAYALAKSHMI RESIDENTIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (R) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT WEST OF CHORD ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560 079 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI MAHABALESHWAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. SRI.RAJANNA S/O LATE V.CHANNANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, C/O MAHABALESH Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48161 WP No. 23685 of 2022 R/AT NO.5, 80 FT ROAD, 2ND BUS STOP MALAGALA VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S. AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS DIRECTING THE R2 TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT LAND IN THE SAME LAYOUT OR ANY EQUIVALENT LAYOUT IN LIEU OF THE UNAUTHORIZED UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following prayers; "a) To call for records. b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 2nd Respondent to allot an alternative equivalent land in the same layout or any equivalent layout in lieu of the unauthorized utilization of the Schedule Property belonging to the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48161 WP No. 23685 of 2022 c) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 2nd Respondent to implement its Board Resolution dated 30.12.1988 (Annexure-H). d) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 2nd Respondent to implement its internal communication dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure -X). e) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 2nd Respondent to award special damages to compensate the petitioner for illegally occupying and unauthorisedly utilizing the Schedule Property for the last 34 years." 2. The petitioner claims his right under an agreement of sale dated 28.12.1981 allegedly executed by the father of the respondent No.3. Subsequently, respondent No.2-BDA issued a preliminary notification on 15.07.1982 proposing to acquire 7 acres 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.9 of Malagala village, followed by the final - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48161 WP No. 23685 of 2022 notification on 05.08.1986. Possession of the land was taken in 1987. A challenge to the said acquisition by the vendor of petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite several representation seeking allotment of an equivalent site in lieu of the acquired property, respondent-BDA has not taken a decision on the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BDA submits that an award has been passed in 2007 and duly approved. It is submitted that petitioner having not perfected title under the alleged agreement of sale, cannot assert a right of allotment. Nevertheless if the petitioner makes fresh representation, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, the writ petition deserves to be disposed of with liberty. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48161 WP No. 23685 of 2022 6. Accordingly, the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation to the respondent- BDA within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iii. On such representation being submitted, the respondent -authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law, within 8 weeks thereafter. iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits or demerits of the petitioner's claim. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13