- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 7953 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. M. PUTTARAJAMMA W/O SRI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, 1ST MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, RAMACHANDRAPURAM BENGALURU-560 013. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - 4 BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANDE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION BEARING NO. BDA/DS- Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 4/ARKAVATHY-X/755/2006-7 DATED 02.03.2007 AT ANNEXURE-N WHILE DECLARING THE SAME TO BE NULL AND VOID ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND INOPERATIVE IN LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to; i) Call for records; ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other dated appropriate Writ to quash the Order of Cancellation bearing No. BDA/DS-4/Arkavathy- X/755/2006-7 02.03.2007 at ANNEXURE - N, while declaring the same to be null and void, arbitrary, illegal, and inoperative in law. iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ to quash the recommendation of Justice K N Keshavanarayana Committee passed in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 KNKC No. 123/2022 dated 02.03.2023 at ANNEXURE P, while declaring the same to be null and void, arbitrary, baseless and bad in law, and devoid of merits. iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1" Respondent to allot an alternative site in leu of Site No. 755, in the same layout, and to come forward and execute a Sale Deed in favour of Petitioner. v) Pass such other Orders/Directions this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity". 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, a writ petition bearing No.3429/2022(BDA) was filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to; Issue Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ or Order directing the respondents-BDA to allot an alternative Site in the same Layout (Arkavathi Layout) in lieu of Site no.755, measuring 6X9 meters, Block-X, Arkavathi Layout and to execute sale deed and other relevant documents in favour of petitioner as per representations dated 14.09.2016, 11.10.2018 21.08.2021 vide ANNEXURES-E, F & G respectively, in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Pass such other writ/s or order/s which are deemed to be fit in the nature and circumstance of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity". 4. It is stated that by an order dated 20.07.2022 passed in the W.P. No.3429/2022, this Court directed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 petitioner to submit a representation to the Committee constituted for the purpose of considering the grievance of the land owners, allotment of alternative sites etc. which representation was to be considered by the Committee and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of. 5. It is stated that it was in the proceedings before the Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee, that the petitioner came to know for the first time that the allotment made in her favour with regard to the allotment in question has been cancelled. It is the contention that no notice prior to cancellation of the allotment was given to the petitioner and neither was the order cancelling the allotment ever served on the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA has submitted that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was illegal as the petitioner did not fulfil the mandatory eligibility criteria for such an allotment. It is stated that therefore the allotment was cancelled in the year 2007 itself. It is stated that the cancellation order was sent to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 petitioner by ordinary post on the address furnished by the petitioner in her application for allotment. It is however fairly admitted that the order of allotment was not sent by registered post or by any other form of recorded delivery. 7. Having perused the record, we find that after the prior writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Committee. The Committee noted that after the allotment of the site, by means of a cancellation order of 02.03.2007, the allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the BDA setting out the grounds on which the allotment of site had been cancelled. It is recorded by the Committee that the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the cancellation and the cancellation order was not received. However, given the fact that the cancellation order was existing on the file produced by the BDA, the Committee was of the opinion that the question of directing the BDA to allot an alternative site to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 the petitioner would not arise. Accordingly, the representation was rejected. 8. Once an allotment was made in favour of the petitioner then, it is a mandate of the principles of natural justice that prior to passing of an order cancelling the allotment, the petitioner should have been put to notice. Moreover, the order of cancellation of allotment, when passed, ought to have been duly served on the petitioner by registered post or personally, which, admittedly was not done in the instant case. As such, the objection of delay being raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in challenging the order of cancellation has to be set at naught by the Court in view of the admitted fact of lack of notice. In view of the aforesaid, the order of cancellation of allotment dated 02.03.2007 (Annexure- N) to the writ petition cannot be sustained and is thereby quashed. 9. It is however left open to the respondent BDA to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, for which steps shall be taken by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33577-DB WP No. 7953 of 2023 BDA no later than a period of one month from today. As far as the prayer for writ of Mandamus sought by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent No.1 to allot an alternative site in lieu of Site No.755 in the same layout and to come forward and execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that she has any statutory enforceable right to seek such a remedy. As such, this prayer of the petitioner is rejected. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28