- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.24779 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: DR. GEETHA NAGARAJ W/O NAGRAJ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.287, NETRA MAHALAKSHMI PURAM, BENGALURU-560086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAGHUNATH C.M., ADVOCATE AND SRI S. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. 2. THE SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-II, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 5. SMT. DODDA AKKAMMA @ RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE MASTHE GOWDA, 6. SRI VINAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE MASTHE GOWDA, 7. SRI VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O LATE MASTHE GOWDA, RESPONDENT NOS.5, 6 & 7 ARE R/AT NO.79, SADENAHALLI, ARADESHANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. 8. SRI J.R. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE D. RAMAIAH, 9. SRI J.R. HARISH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE D. RAMAIAH, RESPONDENT NOS.8 & 9 ARE R/AT JAKKURU VILLAGE & POST, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 30/08/2024 IN NO.BDA/D.S-3/2618 2024-25 IS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AND TO SET ASIDE ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R1 TO 4 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.3226B MEASURING 161.70 SQ. METERS SITUATED AT ARKAVATHI LAYOUT, BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER This writ petition is directed against the endorsement dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the allotment letter dated 22.08.2024, whereby Site No.3226-B in Arkavathy layout has been allotted to respondent No.5 as a land loser. The petitioner, who claims to have purchased Site No.7 of the Kempegowda Rural House Building Co- Operative Society in the year 1997, contends that a portion of her site was utilized by the BDA for road widening and that, in view of the BDA’s resolution dated 20.12.2011 granting alternative site to similarly situated site owners, she is entitled to allotment of Site No.3226-B. Therefore, she seeks quashing of the endorsement and allotment made in her favour of respondent No.5. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner purchased Site No.7 formed by Kempegowda Rural House Building Co-Operative Society in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 1997. During the formation of Arkavathy Layout, the BDA utilized 53.91 square meters of the petitioner's site, for widening the existing 40 feet road to 70 feet road. According to the petitioner, the total affected area including the adjoining portion measures 95.69 square meters, for which she claims entitlement to an alternative site. The BDA passed Resolution No.364/2011 dated 20.12.2011, resolving to consider allotment of alternative sites to site owners whose lands were utilized for road formation in the area. In the meanwhile, the BDA acquired lands in Sy. No.92/1 of Jakkur village from several land owners under preliminary notification dated 03.02.2003 and final notification dated 18.06.2014. Respondent No.5 is one such land loser, whose ownership over acquired land stands confirmed by a decree of the Civil Court in O.S. No.5250/2014. 3. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 01.04.2024 with respondent No.5 and her children in respect of the sital - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 area receivable from the BDA as compensation. After processing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer recommended allotment of Site No.3226-B to respondent No.5 as a compensation under the 40 : 60 scheme. The Commissioner, BDA, by order dated 23.07.2024, approved the allotment and allotment letter dated 22.08.2024 was issued in favour of respondent No.5. The petitioner applied for the same site and sought an endorsement as to its status. Based on her own representation, the BDA issued the impugned endorsement dated 30.08.2024, informing that Site No.3226-B had already been allotted to respondent No.5. 4. Heard Sri Suresh S. Lokre, learned senior counsel for Sri Raghunath C.M. and Sri S. Shravan S. Lokre, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri R. Bhadrinath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 Petitioner’s contention: 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the BDA used 53.91 square meters of her site and adjoining portions measuring 95.69 square meters and therefore, she is entitled to an alternative site under the 2011 Resolution. It is contended that the BDA had earlier considered her case for allotment of an alternate site and that the records show availability of several nearby vacant sites, including Site No.3226-B. Challenging the endorsement dated 30.08.2024 and the allotment in favour of respondent No.5, it is alleged that the allotment was made in a haste manner, without transparency and in disregard to the direction issued in W.P. No.6835/2020 to consider her representation. It is contended that respondent Nos.5 to 9 have executed a collusive agreement to corner valuable BDA sites, and the petitioner seeks allotment of Site No.3226-B in her favour in preference to respondent No.5. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 Contention of respondent Nos.1 to 4-BDA: 6. It is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable since the endorsement is only an intimation issued in response to the petitioner's own request and that the petitioner is not challenging the actual allotment which preceded the endorsement. It is further stated that Site No.3226-B was processed simultaneously in two separate files, one relating to petitioner's request for an alternative site and other relating to land loser compensation. Both petitioner and respondent No.5 claimed the same site. Hence, the matter was placed before the Commissioner, who directed allotment in favour of land loser. It is submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to any specific site, her request for an alternative site is still under consideration under the Resolution 2011. Contention of respondent Nos. 5 to 9: 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would contend that respondent No.5 is a land loser under the 2003 acquisition notification. It is submitted that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 registered agreement of sale dated 01.04.2024 is a valid transaction for the sital area receivable as compensation and the allotment of Site No.3226-B on 22.08.2024 is strictly in accordance with law and cannot be interfered. The petitioner at best can seek consideration for an alternative site, but cannot claim a right over the very site allotted to respondent No.5. 8. This Court has considered the contentions. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the allotment of Site No.3226-B made in favour of respondent No.5, a land loser, and whether the petitioner can seek allotment of the very site as an alternative site under the BDA Resolution dated 20.12.2011?” Reasons and findings: 9. The petitioner's claim arises from the fact that 53.91 square meters of her society's site was utilized by the BDA for road widening and the adjoining portion totally - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 95.69 square meters. The BDA, through Resolution No.364/2011 dated 20.12.2011, resolved to consider allotment of alternative site to site owners whose lands were used for road formation. This resolution does not confer a vested right to any specific site, nor does it override statutory entitlements arising out of land acquisition. 10. The material on record reveals that respondent No.5 is a land loser in respect of Survey No.92/1 of Jakkur Village, acquired for formation of Arkavathy layout under the preliminary notification dated 03.02.2003 and final notification dated 18.06.2014. The ownership of respondent No.5 stands confirmed by a decree in O.S.No.5250/2014. The entitlement of land loser to sital area under the 40 : 60 scheme is a statutory consequence of acquisition and compensation determination, which prevails over an administrative resolution. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 11. Both the petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for Site No.3226-B. The Commissioner, BDA, after examining both files, found that the land loser had a superior statutory claim and accordingly, passed an order on 23.07.2024 directing the allotment of site in favour of respondent No.5. Accordingly, an allotment letter dated 22.08.2024 was issued in her favour. No material is placed to show that the decision of the Commissioner suffers from illegality, procedural irregularity or mala fides. The petitioner's allegation of collusion is unfounded. Respondent No.5 has executed a registered agreement of sale dated 01.04.2024 with respondent Nos.8 and 9 concerning the sital area receivable as compensation and such an agreement does not extinguish the land loser’s statutory entitlement, neither does it amount to a transfer of BDA site before allotment and cannot invalidate the allotment. The endorsement dated 30.08.2024, issued at the petitioner's own request, merely communicates the fact of allotment already made to respondent No.5. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 endorsement does not adjudicate any rights nor it is a source of allotment. 12. However, the petitioner cannot claim Site No.3226-B, her application for allotment of an alternate site under the 2011 Resolution ought to be considered independently, without being affected by the allotment made to respondent No.5. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition insofar as it seeks quashing of the allotment of Site No.3226-B made in favour of respondent No.5, fails and is accordingly dismissed. ii. The endorsement dated 30.08.2024 issued by the BDA is only an information and does not warrant interference. Hence, the prayer to quash the same is rejected. iii. However, the BDA is directed to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of an - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52849 WP No. 24779 of 2024 alternative site under Resolution No.364/2011 dated 20.12.2011, strictly in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iv. While doing so, the BDA shall take into account the extent of 53.91 square meters utilized and total 95.69 square meters claimed to have been affected, and examine the petitioner's eligibility under the applicable norms. v. It is made clear that such considerations shall be independent and uninfluenced by the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5. vi. All other contentions are kept open. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96