- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7072 WP No. 17641 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17641 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MARY JANSI W/O MR JOSEPH PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.14 2ND MAIN, S K GARDEN BANGALORE-560 042. 2. SRI PREM KUMAR J J S/O JOSEPH PREM RAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4 5TH CROSS, L B S NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 048. 3. SMT JAYA MARY W/O A JAI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.327-1, JAI RESIDENCE, 3RD CROSS CHIKKABANASWADI BANGALORE-560 038. 4. SMT MARY SUDANDRA W/O H STEPHENSON AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 5TH CROSS, L B S NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 048. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHAN G.K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7072 WP No. 17641 of 2024 AND: 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY PETITIONER NO.1 DATED 16.08.2023 (ANNEXURE-N) AND ISSUE A WRIT/DIRECTION QUASHING THE E- AUCTION NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-M TO M2). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation made by petitioner No.1 dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-N) b) Issue a Writ/direction quashing the E-auction notification issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-M to M2). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7072 WP No. 17641 of 2024 2. Case of the petitioners is that their mother Smt.C.Mary had purchased property bearing old No.16, New No.2CC-601, situated private layout at 2nd Cross, 2nd Stage, BDA Layout, Banaswadi, Bangalore -560 043 (schedule property) in terms of deed of sale dated 02.09.2006 from Mr.R.Mohan Kumar and Mrs.Bharathi Mohan Kumar. The said Mohan Kumar and Bharathi Mohan Kumar had in turn purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 10.02.1994. That the said Smt.C.Mary passed away on 03.04.2012 leaving behind the petitioners to succeed to the same. That in the year 2007 respondent-BDA had tried to auction the aforesaid property on the premise of same having been acquired by it. A writ petition in W.P.No.8911/2007 had been filed by said Smt.C.Mary which was dismissed as the aforesaid property was not the one sought to be auctioned by the respondent. Subsequently it was learnt that the aforesaid property along with other adjoining properties were acquired by the respondent-BDA vide preliminary notification dated 21.03.1977 and final notification dated 14.05.1980 for acquisition of subject property and an award came to be passed on 26.02.1981. That mother of the petitioner had preferred a writ appeal in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7072 WP No. 17641 of 2024 W.A.No.1675/2007 wherein the appeal came to be dismissed directing her to approach Civil Court as the very identity of the property was questioned. There after Mrs.Mary approached the office of respondent No.1 and requested for a survey for which there was no response. Again petitioner No.2 filed RTI application requesting for information regarding Site No.2CC- 601 and 2DC-602. Respondent No.1 vide response letter dated 05.08.2010 furnished the details stating the above mentioned sites fall under Sy.No.295 of Banaswadi Village. That petitioners approached the jurisdictional Civil Court and filed O.S.No.8193/2013 seeking injunction from dispossession along with other consequential reliefs against the respondents herein and that the suit came to be dismissed. Again petitioner No.2 filed an RTI application in 2013 to which respondent No.1 responded stating that there were no sites formed in Sy.No.292 of Banaswadi Village. That petitioners made several representations to the respondent No.1 requesting them to issue NOC or regularize or reconvey the schedule property in favour of the petitioners. However, there has been no response. Hence, the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7072 WP No. 17641 of 2024 3. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel for petitioners is unable to point out the basis on which the petitioners are claiming their right inasmuch as the question of very identity of the property has not been established. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners at this juncture seeks liberty be reserved to the petitioners to make appropriate representation seeking appropriate relief as provided under law. 5. Submission taken on record. Petitioners are at liberty to file representation specifically pointing out the provision under which they are seeking relief within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If such representation is made, respondent authorities to consider the same in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37