- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. JOSEPH RAJ S/O SHANTAPPA R/A NO.69, 3RD FLOOR, NANDI WEST PLOT NO.301, 4TH BLOCK, 4TH STAGE BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 BENGALURU-560 001 3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE J C ROAD, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. REENA R, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2, SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE IN WP BEARING No-8204/2019 AND ALLOW THIS WA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant- Bengaluru Development Authority (for brevity "BDA") challenging the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8204/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed appellant-BDA to fructify the allotment of site in favour of respondent i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition by executing and registering a regular conveyance within a period of eight weeks from the date of said order. 2. The facts of the case are that one Sri. M. Nanjappa was issued with a Possession Certificate dated 21.09.1978 in respect of Site No.262, Block 3, West of Chord Road, 4th Stage, measuring East to West 9.14 meters and North to South 12.2 meters by the then CITB. Thereafter, the said M. Nanjappa has executed an Agreement for Sale dated 09.07.1994, with respondent No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.1 has filed OS.No.6825/2011 for specific performance of contract - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 solely on the basis of Agreement for Sale dated 09.07.1994. The said M. Nanjappa was placed exparte and the suit came to be decreed on 10.11.2014, wherein M. Nanjappa was directed to execute a Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.1 herein within a period of 60 days from the date of said order. 3. Later, in the Execution Petition No.137/2015 filed by respondent No.1 herein, the Executing Court ordered for execution of Sale Deed. Accordingly the Court Sale Deed was executed on 30.08.2017. 4. Subsequently the respondent No.1 herein has filed WP.No.8204/2019, against appellant/BDA to take cognizance of the Sale Deed dated 30.08.2017/execute absolute Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.1 and to direct the BBMP to take note of such Sale Deed. The learned Single Judge of this court allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 17.03.2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 5. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-BDA has filed instant appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Karthikeyan B.S., for the appellant-BDA, the learned counsel Smt. Reena. R., for the respondent No.1, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel Sri. B.L. Sanjeev., for respondent No.3. 7. The primary contention of learned counsel for the appellant\BDA is that the BDA has neither issued any possession certificate as claimed by M. Nanjappa on 21.09.1978, nor any Lease-cum-Sale Deed was executed in his favour. In such circumstance, said Nanjappa has no valid title in respect of the property in question to execute Agreement for Sale in favour of respondent No. 1. 8. Further, it is contended that though the appellant-BDA was necessary and proper party to the Civil Proceedings, the BDA was not at all arrayed as a party to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 the said suit, wherein the Trial Court has ordered to execute the Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.1. In such circumstance, the appellant was not aware about filing of suit before the Civil Court. 9. He further contended that the order secured by respondent No.1 was an exparte order in Execution Petition No.137/2015 that too after a lapse of decades. Hence, as a government local body, acceptance of execution of Sale Deed passed by the Court, without perusing its authentication and acting upon the direction on the same, may be questionable and is against the public interest. 10. Lastly, he contended that, when there was no contract between the appellant and respondent No.1, the question of directing the appellant to fructify the allotment of subject site in favour of respondent No.1 does not arise. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by considering the aspect that the respondent No.1 entered into a Agreement for Sale in respect of the property in question with one M. Nanjappa the original allottee from the predecessor of BDA i.e., CITB. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance against said M. Nanjappa in O.S.No.6825/2011 and the Civil Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 and executed a sale deed through Court. In such circumstance, predecessor of the BDA i.e., CITB allotted the property to the original allottee M. Nanjappa, who inturn executed the Sale Agreement in favour of respondent No.1 and based on the said sale agreement the Court Sale deed had been executed in favour of the respondent No.1. Hence BDA is duty bound to execute the regular conveyance. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. It could be gathered from records, that the site in question was allotted to the vendor of the respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 No.1 by the CITB way back in the year 1978 after receiving the consideration and also issuing the possession certificate. Subsequently, the original allottee i.e., the vendor of respondent No.1 executed an Agreement for Sale in favour of respondent No.1 in the year 1994 and later, failed to execute the Sale Deed. As such, respondent No.1 filed a civil suit in O.S.No.6825/2011 for specific performance of contract against original allottee M. Nanjappa. The said suit was decreed on 10.11.2014 and the Court Sale Deed was executed in Execution Petition. Hence, respondent No.1 approached the BDA to fructify the Sale Deed/execute the registered Sale Deed through Court decree and alternatively direct the BDA to execute the Sale Deed in his favour by virtue of the Agreement for Sale executed to his vendor. Since the BDA fail to do so the respondent No.1 approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.8204/201 13. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and has observed in para No.3 as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 "3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: (i) The site in question was allotted to Petitioner’s vendor after receiving the prescribed price and that the said site till date has been kept unallotted to anyone else are fairly admitted from the side of BDA, consistent with the records produced. Allotment of site is done not in a private negotiation but in accordance with the extant Allotment Rules promulgated under the erstwhile City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 which has since been repealed by the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, making the BDA a legal successor of City Improvement Trust Board. The Allotment Letter coupled with the payment of full price creates an equitable interest in the subject site in favour of allottee on the basis of which Petitioner has secured a Specific Performance decree in the subject suit, against him. (ii) The above being the position, the decree of the Court has to be recognized and acted upon by the statutory authorities like the BDA, regardless of its being a party thereto or not, consistent with the ‘doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel’ enacted in section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 especially when no amount was due from the side of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 allottee towards the sital value nor any formal compliance was expected of him. Added, the subject site has been kept un-allotted to anyone else for decades and no third party rights have been created, either. Had BDA too been arrayed as a defendant, it would have been ideal for the adjudication of suit, is beside the point. If the allottee was entitled to have the conveyance in terms of allotment, his vendee standing in his shoes by virtue of agreement followed by Court decree, will have those rights, their jural correlative i.e., the duty resting on the shoulders of the then CITB and now BDA being its successor. (iii) The vehement submission of learned BDA Panel Counsel that his client was a necessary party to the suit and therefore, decree secured against someone else cannot be executed against others and as a corollary, his client cannot be asked to take cognizance of the court decree oscillates between what is true of law and what is not. Ordinarily, the decrees of courts, unless rendered in rem like the ones made in special jurisdiction of matrimonial, insolvency, probate & admiralty, bind parties eo nomine, cannot be gainfully disputed and therefore, they are not executable against non-parties. However, execution of a decree is one thing and acting on them by taking their cognizance, is another. Execution of decrees is “party- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 specific” whereas taking their cognizance, is not. The statutory authorities ordinarily cannot be heard to say that they would not take cognizance of the decrees passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction subject to all just exceptions. This view secures succor from the inner voice of Article 261 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: "261. Public acts, records and judicial proceedings. (1)Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.” (iv) The provisions of Article 261 of our Fundamental Document has been very carefully crafted by the Makers of the Constitution, essentially keeping in view the principles of Federalism within the Indian constitutional context. This idea they have taken from the American Model. Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution employing a similar clause, reads as under: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” (v)To fully appreciate the underlying principle of “Full faith and credit clause”, it would be profitable to peruse the background - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution on which Article 261 is presumably structured. Prior to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation (1777), in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, American Courts in each Colony, regarded the judgments of others merely as foreign & inconclusive, and only as a prima facie evidence of the matter adjudged1 . This structural fallacy permitted judgments to be re-examined on merits in the Colony concerned, eventually posing some difficulty. Therefore in March of 1781, the Articles of Confederation adopted the full faith & credit clause. The framers of the U.S. Constitution (1788) extended the full faith and credit clause to include the authentication of the records, Acts, and judicial proceedings while also providing Congress (U.S. Parliament) with the power to decide the manner in which records, Acts and judicial proceedings are to be proved, on the advice of James Madison Jr. (1751 - 1836) . Similarly, Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia employs a full faith and credit clause, which has the following text: “Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.” From the above discussion it can be presumed that the ‘full faith and credit clause’ was introduced not only as a principle of Federalism aimed at eliminating conflict of laws within a federal structure, but also to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 provide legitimacy and conclusiveness to acts, records and judicial proceedings. (vi) Although, Article 261 employs the expression “proceedings of the Union and of every State” as a qualification to the norm enacted therein, its text & context support the view that the statutory authorities, in the absence of justification to the contrary, as of necessity and consistent with rule of law, have to take inter alia cognizance of judicial proceedings; this constitutional obligation becomes more imperative when such proceedings have culminated into effective decrees & orders. If fraud, fabrication & duplicity are apparent to the naked eye, such cases stand on a different footing in view of decision of Apex Court in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU vs. JAGANNATH , hardly needs to be stated. The contention that no Possession Certificate was issued to the allottee and therefore, the one produced appears to be fake, does not come to the rescue of the Respondents, when allotment of site and receipt of the prescribed price therefor have been specifically admitted by the BDA (vii) By virtue of agreement followed by the Court decree, the Petitioner fills the character of original allottee and therefore, becomes entitled to have the conveyance at the hands of the allotter i.e., BDA in respect of the subject site. The contention that the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 Respondent-BDA was a proper party if not a necessary party to the suit, is difficult to sustain in the light of decision of the Apex Court in RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM , which broadly discusses as to who is a proper and who a necessary party. For the adjudication of the suit, the only necessary party was the allottee of the site and none others. There is a lot of scope for the argument, had the BDA been arrayed as Defendant No.2 to the suit, it could have sought for its deletion from the Cause Title. (viii) The last contention of learned Panel counsel appearing for the BDA that the subject suit was decreed ex parte qua the allottee of the site in question and therefore, Court decree cannot be taken cognizance of, is untenable. So far as execution & enforceability of Court decrees are concerned, law does not differentiate between decrees that are obtained after full-fledged trial and those secured placing the defendants ex parte, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioner does not fit. Justice of the case even otherwise warrants that the BDA should do all endeavors to ensure fruits of the decree reach palms of the decree holder; an argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without undermining the sanctity of judicial process and that in turn would affect the rule of law in the realm." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 14. Having considered the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and also on careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant being the successor of CITB is duty bound to fructify the allotment of subject site in favour of respondent No.1 who is a decree holder. Further it is a specific case of the respondent No.1 that, his vendor M. Nanjappa had paid entire sale consideration to the BDA while executing the Sale Agreement in his favour. Later possession certificate also issued by the BDA in favour of the said M. Nanjappa. The absolute sale deed was not executed in his favour due to non alienation clause in the Agreement. However the original allottee M. Nanjappa sold property in favour of respondent No.1 only after non- alienation period. Subsequently, the said M. Nanjappa failed to execute the absolute Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.1 however, in the suit filed by respondent No.1 a court Sale Deed was executed in his favour. Hence the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ appeal - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39359-DB WA No. 1192 of 2023 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, ten weeks time is granted to the BDA to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, the order of costs imposed by learned Single Judge for delay in registering Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.1 is made easy. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11