- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53881 WP No. 534 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.534 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI P. GOPALAPPA ALIAS GOPALAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAMPIGEHALLI, JAKKUR POST, BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 3. ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE. (R-3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.07.2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-3) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53881 WP No. 534 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO FORM SITES AND ALLOT THE SAME TO ANY OTHER THIRD PARTIES ON THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS THE DAME HAS NOT BEEN ACQUIRED; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE OVER THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, 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 a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from forming layout and allotting site in respect of the petition schedule property situated in Sy.No.42 of Sampigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru contending that the said extent was never acquired for the formation of Arkavathi layout. 2. The claim of the petitioner is seriously disputed by the respondents. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court had directed the jurisdictional Additional Director of Land Records (ADLR) to conduct the joint survey of the schedule property. Pursuant thereto, a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53881 WP No. 534 of 2023 survey was conducted and the survey sketch and the report have been placed on record. The said report does not support the case of the petitioner and indicates that the schedule property forms part of the acquired park/layout area. 3. The petitioner however disputes the correctness of the ADLR report and relies upon the acquisition notification, revenue records and conversion orders to contend that the schedule property was not acquired. 4. The respondents on the other hand place reliance upon the survey report to justify their action. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the core issue revolves around identification, location and extent of the land and whether the petition schedule property forms part of the land acquired for Arkavathi layout. These issues involve serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53881 WP No. 534 of 2023 Constitution of India, particularly when rival claims are supported by documentary evidence requiring appreciation and examination. 6. It is well settled that where adjudication of rights depend upon disputed questions of fact, the writ Court would ordinarily relegate the parties to an appropriate Civil forum. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law before the competent Civil Court or other appropriate forum. 8. All the contentions of both parties are kept open. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74