- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 1266 OF 2025 (BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 26100 OF 2024 IN WP No. 1266/2025 BETWEEN: MRS. RAHIMA W/O MOHAMMED AZAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5, 1ST FLOOR 1ST STREET, NEHRU NAGAR PAMMAL, KANCHEEPURAM CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 075 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN KUMAR H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 BENGALURU–560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTTHE R-2 TO DISPOSE THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 08.08.2024 AS PER ANNX-V IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN WP NO. 26100/2024 BETWEEN: MRS. ATHEYA KHATOON W/O MR. ABDUL KHADEER AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.341, 2ND CROSS 1ST BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE-560 032 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BDA COMPLEX, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE 560 032 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BDA COMPLEX, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE 560 032 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM HARASSING THE PETITIONER BY THREATENING THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED UPON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UPON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE PETITIONER. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Since both these Writ Petitions relate to the same property, namely Site No. 1625, BBMP Katha No. 2548/ 1625 (old 2546/1625) situated at HBR Layout, I Stage, V Block and, and the relief sought by the parties arise out of rival claims of ownership and possession over the same - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 site, they are heard and are being disposed of by this common order. Facts in brief: 2. In W.P 26100/2024, the petitioner Mrs. Atheya Khatoon claims to have purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2020 from one Mrs. V. Sudha, who in turn had purchased it from Smt. C.S. Rukmini under a sale deed dated 11.03.2016. The original allotment, according to the petitioner, was made by the BDA to Smt. C.S. Rukmini under an allotment letter dated 16.11.1987, followed by a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 21.12.1988, and subsequently a sale deed dated 26.02.2016 was executed. Petitioner claims to be in lawful possession, with katha, tax receipts, BESCOM and BWSSB connections. The petitioner's grievance is that the BDA officers, allegedly at the behest of one Mrs. Rahima attempted to demolish her building without any notice, even though Rahima's civil suit in OS 6307 of 2020 had been dismissed on 27.02.2024 and hence seeks a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 direction restraining the BDA from demolishing or interfering with her possession. 3. In W.P 1266 of 2025, the petitioner Mrs. Rahima claims to be the lawful owner of the same site, purchased under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2018 from Mrs. Jamuna, who had acquired it from Muniraju and Manjunath under sale deed dated 01.06.2016. According to the petitioner, Muniraju and Manjunath are genuine allottees of the site No. 1625 under an alternative site allotment dated 21.11.2015, in lieu of the acquired land and the BDA has executed a valid sale deed on 21.01.2016. It is averred that the subsequent sale deed in favour of C.S. Rukmini (original allottee under whom petitioner in W.P.26100 of 2024 claims title) dated 26.02.2016 was obtained by producing a forged lease-cum-sale agreement dated 21.12.1988, whose registration number in fact pertains to a different property in Kenchenahalli, not HBR layout. The petitioner relies upon the BDA's Criminal Complaint No. FIR 0020/2022 registered against C.S. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 Rukmini and certain BDA officials for offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that though BDA itself admitted the fraud, it has not cancelled the fraudulent deed, compelling her to seek a writ of mandamus directing BDA to act on her representation dated 08.08.2024. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- BDA. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P 26100/2024 contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value from the rightful owner. The suit filed by Rahima in OS No. 6307/2020 has been dismissed and hence Rahima's claim stands negated. The BDA officials have no authority to adjudicate the dispute or attempt demolition without notice. The action is arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the principles of natural justice. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P 1266 of 2025 contends that the site was validly allotted by BDA in 2015, alleged allotment or lease cum sale in favour of C.S.Rukmini is fabricated. Document No. 9736/1988-89 actually relates to another property, hence 2016 sale deed to Rukmini is void. It is contended that the BDA having recognised the fraud must act to cancel the illegal document and protect genuine ownership. Failure to act amounts to violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that rival claimants assert inconsistent ownership based on different chains of title. The determination of genuineness of documents and validity of the sale deeds require evidence and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The dispute is purely civil in nature and proper remedy is before a Civil Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The petitioners assert title to the same BDA site, each tracing their claim through distinct registered documents. The controversy involves allegation of forgery, fabrications, and disputed titles, all of which demand detailed factual enquiry and proof of evidence. It is settled law that when disputed questions of fact are involved, Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for adjudicating particularly where rival private rights are in issue. The appropriate forum for resolution of such controversy is the Civil Court, which alone can record evidence and declare ownership. Though the BDA have initiated criminal proceedings against certain officials on the ground of alleged fraud, the question of title and possession cannot be concluded based on that action alone. Therefore, this Court holds that both - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44348 WP No. 1266 of 2025 C/W WP No. 26100 of 2024 the Writ Petitions are not maintainable for adjudication of title. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title, injunction and also other consequential relief in respect of site No. 1625, HBR Layout, I Stage, V Block, Bengaluru. The respondents are also at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. The BDA shall not take any coercive action or demolition without due process of law. All the contentions are kept open to be urged before the competent Civil Court. The Civil Court shall pass appropriate orders without being influenced or prejudiced by the decision of this Court. Accordingly both the Writ Petitions stands disposed of. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7