- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43352 WP No. 25964 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.25964 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.106, 5TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, SOAP FACTORY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DHANUSH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-2) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43352 WP No. 25964 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.08.2025 HAVING NUMBER BEMAPRA/ABUSWAA/T.1151/2025-26, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DENYING THE PETITIONER’S PLEA FOR ALTERNATE SITE IN LIEU OF COMPENSATION WITH REGARD TO THE ACQUISITION OF PETITIONER’S PROPERTY i.e. SITES NO.10 AND 11 AT SURVEY NO.29/1 AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK FOR THE FORMATION OF SIR. M. VISVESVARAYA LAYOUT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 to quash the endorsement dated 04.08.2025 issued by respondent No.1 denying the petitioner's plea for allotment of an alternate site in lieu of the compensation with respect to acquisition of the petitioner's property i.e., site Nos.10 and 11 at Sy.No.29/1 at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, for the formation of Sir M. Visvesvaraiah Layout, Bengaluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43352 WP No. 25964 of 2025 Brief facts: 3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Site Nos.10 and 11 with house list khata No.29 totally measuring 2,400 square feet situated at Sy.No.29/1 at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The respondent-BDA, through a final notification acquired 9 acres out of 10 acres 30 guntas in the said survey number for the formation of Sir M. Visvesvaraiah Layout. The said acquisition was upheld by this Court in Junjamma and Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority, Rep by its Commissioner, BDA1 (Junjamma). 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the said decision, the BDA invited applications from site owners affected by the acquisition to register themselves and seek allotment of alternate sites on or before 31.12.2014. The petitioner submitted applications 1 ILR 2005 KAR 608 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43352 WP No. 25964 of 2025 accordingly, seeking for an alternate site in lieu of compensation. Her request, however, came to be rejected by endorsement dated 04.08.2025 on the ground that the challenge to the acquisition filed by the alleged original landowners was pending in W.A.No.2873-83/2013. 5. The petitioner contends that the pendency of writ appeal cannot be a ground to deny her the benefit of allotment, since she had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 13.03.1995, much prior to the issuance of the acquisition notification in 2002. It is contended that the vendor had divested all rights under the sale deed and therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition. It is submitted that BDA ought to considered her representation independently, as she is the bonafide purchaser and owner in possession of the property at the time of acquisition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the vendor’s challenge to acquisition proceedings is still pending in the W.A.No.2873-83/2013 and has not yet - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43352 WP No. 25964 of 2025 attained finality. Therefore, any derivative claim of the petitioner as purchaser cannot be adjudicated independently until the said proceedings are concluded. It is also contended that the right of alternate site is not automatic but a discretionary post acquisition benefit extended by the authority after the acquisition attains finality. 7. On consideration of the rival submission and material on record, it is evident that the challenge to acquisition by the petitioner’s vendor is still pending adjudication in W.A.No.2873-83/2013 until the said proceedings attain finality, any derivative or successor claim of the purchaser cannot be considered independently. 8. The right to seek allotment of an alternate site arise only after the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings. Hence, at this stage, no direction can be issued for allotment of an alternate site. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43352 WP No. 25964 of 2025 petitioner to submit a fresh representation seeking allotment of site, if so advised, after disposal of W.A.No.2873-83/2013 relating to the acquisition of land in question in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9