- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.951 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI THAMMARAJU .P AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY RESIDING AT PROPERTY NO.58, SY.NO.2/1, ULLAL VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 2. THE SECRETARY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 4. SRI VENKATESH KULKARNI @ V.G. KULKARNI S/O. GURUNATH RAO KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT TULIP, 203, 2ND FLOOR, ESTEEM PARK APARTMENT, ROSE GARDEN, J.P. NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.11.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO FORTHWITH ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 IN NO.BEM.AAPRAA/KAAVI/175/2024-25 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT 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 called in question the Order dated 16.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 5(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, directing eviction from the Schedule Premises. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. The principle grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without first considering his representation for allotment of alternative site, especially in view of admitted possession that the premises is a residential house in a longstanding occupation of the petitioner and his family. 4. It is not in dispute that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner succeeded in R.A.No.158/2014, wherein a decree was granted protecting his possession against forcible dispossession and not to dispossess him until in due process of law. 5. The land in question stands notified for the formation of road and the respondents are required to complete the execution of the scheme and the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 does not dispute the said position and he expresses his willingness to vacate the premises voluntarily, provided a reasonable time is granted and his request for consideration of an alternative site is not shut out. 6. Having given anxious consideration to the submission and upon examining the material placed on record, while the petitioner has established a longstanding residential occupation of his premises and has the benefit of adequately protecting him from forcible dispossession, the respondents on the other hand have to implement the notified scheme and complete the formation of road in the layout. The petitioner having expressed his willingness to vacate the premises voluntarily, provided reasonable time is granted, and his request for alternative site is not foreclosed. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the interest of both the parties can be met by granting limited time to the petitioner to vacate coupled with liberty to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 pursue his remedy for an alternative site before the competent authority, which shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. However, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the schedule premises, subject to the filing of an affidavit before this Court within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, undertaking that he shall voluntarily vacate the premises on or before 15.02.2025 and shall not give rise to any further litigation obstructing the process of eviction thereafter. iii. The petitioner is at liberty to submit an appropriate application to the respondents seeking allotment of alternative site, if so advised, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 iv. If such an application is submitted, the BDA shall consider the same strictly in accordance with the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984 and the relevant eligibility criteria, and shall pass a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application. v. It is needless to say that upon voluntary delivery of possession by the petitioner in terms of his affidavit, the respondents shall expedite the formation of road and completion of the layout as per the scheme, without further delay. vi. The petitioner to vacate the premises as indicated in Sl.No.ii, it is observed that the vacating of premises is independent and is not subject to nor conditional upon, the consideration of the petitioner’s application for allotment of an alternative site, which the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50470 WP No. 951 of 2025 respondent-authority shall examine in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25