- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19580 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI PANCHALINGAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEMMIGEPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY MISS.KAVYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND HOUSING, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 BENGALURU – 560 020. 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI M.AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION TENDERED BY THE PETITIONER ON 15.07.2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND REPRESENTATION TENDERED ON 15.01.2025 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B IN A TIME BOUND MANNER.; B. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE PETITIONER SUM OF RS. 7225.80/- PER SQ.FT., AS PER THE SALE DEED 15.03.2018 WHICH IS PART OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.01.2025 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B, ALONG WITH SOLATIUM AND INTEREST FROM 01.01.2011 IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2018 PASSED IN WP NO. 30928/2018 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or writ directing the Respondents to consider the representation tendered by the Petitioner on 15.07.2024 found at Annexure-A and representation tendered on 15.01.2025 found at Annexure-B in a time bound manner; b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner sum of Rs. 7225.80/- per sq.ft., as per the sale deed 15.03.2018 which is part of representation dated 15.01.2025 found at Annexure-B, along with solatium and interest from 01.01.2011 in pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2018 passed in WP No. 30928/2018 found at Annexure-H to the writ petition; C. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 2. Heard Ms.Kavya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M. Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved with the utilization of 2 guntas of land belonging to him, approaches this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 Court in W.P.No.17993/2016. The said writ petition comes to be disposed in terms of the order dated 22.03.2017, directing the respondents – Bengaluru Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. The order reads as follows: “The petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 17.3.2016, vide Annexure-A. 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 submits that if a reasonable time is granted, the same will be considered in accordance with Law. 3. In view of the submission made, the writ petition is disposed off. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 17.3.2016, vide Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders therein in accordance with Law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” No order is passed despite grant of 6 months. Therefore, the petitioner had to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court in C.C.C.No.2155 of 2017, which comes to be disposed on 08.02.2018, on an endorsement of the respondents – BDA indicating that the land cannot be put into acquisition proceedings but the petitioner’s grievance can be considered in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 a particular manner. The order passed by the division bench in C.C.C.No.2155/2017 reads as follows: “2. Said order was passed on 22.03.2017. Copy of order passed by this Court was made available to respondent-BDA on 25.05.2017 as is clear from Annexure-B. Representation of complainant is enclosed to contempt petition. BDA has not complied with this direction within the time limit prescribed. However, today, a memo is filed into Court by the counsel for BDA enclosing endorsement dated 06.02.2018 addressed to complainant informing that his request for allotment of alternate site for having utilized his 2 guntas of land without resorting to any acquisition proceedings could not be considered, but the value of land could be determined and paid by way of compensation in case complainant were to express his willingness for the same. 3. Learned counsel for complainant submits that complainant is indeed harassed by not allotting alternate site though land measuring 2 guntas has been taken over without recourse to law and without initiating any acquisition proceedings and paying compensation. 4. Although direction issued by learned Single Judge is that representation has to be considered, BDA was required to consider the grievance of complainant/writ petitioner in its true spirit. However, we are not inclined to express any opinion in the contempt petition with regard to the said conduct of BDA. 5. No explanation has been offered for the delay of nearly 5 months from the date of order passed by this Court on 22.03.2017 for not complying with the direction. Having regard to the said conduct of BDA, while we are inclined to close this proceeding, we are persuaded to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- against BDA. Said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two (2) weeks from today.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the said order, which was rendered during the subsistence of the contempt proceedings. The petitioner then calls in question the endorsement dated 06.02.2018, in W.P.No.30928/2018, before a coordinate bench of this Court, which comes to be disposed on 11.06.2019 by the following order: “3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of endorsement dated 06.02.2018 as well as writ of mandamus to consider the request of the petitioner dated 25.05.2017 to allot an alternative site to the petitioner as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17993/2016. 4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submitted that the land of the petitioner measuring 2 guntas has already been utilized by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and they are ready and willing to pay either the market value of the land of the petitioner or the alternative site. 5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be allotted an alternative site in place of the land that has been acquired. The aforesaid statement has been accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and taking into account the fact that the right to hold the property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the competent authority of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is directed to allot 2 guntas of alternative land to the petitioner which is equivalent in nature and quality of the land belonging to the petitioner which has been utilized by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, within a period of six weeks from today. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.” The direction issued by the co-ordinate bench is to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of alternative land equivalent to 2 guntas of land that had been utilized by the BDA. Again there was no consideration as was directed by the coordinate bench within the time frame so prescribed, in the afore-quoted order. The petitioner again knocks at the doors of the contempt court in C.C.C.No.1792/2019, which comes to be disposed by an order dated 21.08.2024, by the following observation: “5. However, in the review petition, the learned Single Judge has passed an order in view of the said paragraph No.4. Therefore, the order dated 11.06.2019 was reviewed and accordingly, it was recalled and W.P No.30292/2018 was restored to file. The review petition came to be allowed. The proceeding in WP No.30928/18 was restored on file and thereafter disposed of on merits on the issues that emerged between the parties to the proceedings on the writ side. Therefore, the contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as Article 215 of the Constitution of India, however, the complainant is required to establish the ingredients of Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it is in the nature of issues. Therefore, it is said that the contempt proceedings do not survive for consideration. Consequently, the contempt proceedings are hereby closed.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 The BDA then files a review petition in R.P.No.593/2023, before a coordinate bench of this Court and it comes to be disposed on 24.04.2024, by recalling the order dated 11.06.2019, passed in W.P.No.30928/2018. The order reads thus: “4. A reading of paragraph 4 of the order would indicate that the statement made by the petitioners herein is that they are ready and willing to pay either the market value of the land or an alternative site. There is no statement by the BDA that they would allot 2 guntas of land which is equivalent in nature and quality of the land of the petitioners. It is, therefore, clear that the order is erroneous and contrary to the statement made by the petitioners. 5. In my view, therefore, an order dated 11.06.2019 is required to be reviewed and accordingly it is recalled and the Writ Petition No. 30928/2018 is restored to file. Review Petition is, accordingly, allowed.” After the restoration of W.P.No.30928/2018, the co- ordinate bench in terms of the order dated 24.04.2024, directs the BDA to calculate the market value of the land by considering the market value as obtaining in the year 2018, for the purpose of calculation of compensation and interest also from the date on which the petitioner was dispossessed i.e., - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 01.01.2011. The case of the petitioner is not considered by the BDA as it is known for its wont. 4. The petitioner is again at the doors of this Court seeking the very direction. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - BDA now sings the same swan song of seeking time, despite 6 rounds of litigation of the petitioner approaching this Court and the contempt Court as well. 6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents - BDA to pass appropriate orders in terms of what is observed hereinabove and on consideration of the representation and pay the petitioner the market value as was directed by the co-ordinate bench in the order quoted supra, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. In the event, the respondents - BDA would not pay as is directed, the BDA will be liable for payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- the petitioner, towards costs of litigation, for driving the petitioner from pillar to post at every juncture. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37485 WP No. 19580 of 2025 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70