- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49614 WP No. 20758 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.20758 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT MUDDAYYAPALYA, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUPRITHA K.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY–3 THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 31-05-2025 VIDE BDA/OOKA- 3/3755/25-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49614 WP No. 20758 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 impugned endorsement dated 31.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.2 has stated that in view of the Government order dated 09.10.2018, the committee has resolved to revoke the earlier decision dated 16.01.2012, and that the petitioner would be entitled only to 3593.70 square feet in respect of 12 guntas of his acquired land. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel the respondents. Perused the material on record. Brief facts: 3. The petitioner is absolute owner of the land bearing old Sy.No.29/8 and new Sy.No.56/1, measuring 1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49614 WP No. 20758 of 2025 acre, situated at Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is stated that 12 guntas of his land was utilized for formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah layout without following due acquisition process and without passing an award. 4. The BDA, upon survey, had decided to allot 50% developed land and allotted alternative site bearing Nos.2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 and 2429 measuring 9x12 meters each and Sy.No.1314/1, measuring 6x9 meters situated at Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah layout, 7th block free of cost based on which a relinquishment deed in the year 2015 was executed. However, two sites Nos.2424 and 2425 (9x12 12 meters) though earmarked for the petitioner were allotted to third parties. 5. This Court in earlier writ petition, directed the BDA to consider the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner filed a contempt petition thereafter, upon which the authority passed the present impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49614 WP No. 20758 of 2025 endorsement relying on the Government order dated 09.10.2018, and committee decision revoking Subject No.4/12 dated 16.01.2012. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the endorsement ignores the earlier allotment of 4688.79 square feet, relinquishment deed, and the admitted fact that two sites measuring 9x12 meters were yet to be allotted. The impugned endorsement is therefore unsustainable. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-BDA submits that the petitioner would still be entitled to two alternative sites 9x12 meters each (totaling 2400 square meters) in accordance with law. 8. The material on record clearly indicates that the relinquishment deed was executed in 2015, based on BDA’s decision to allot certain sites to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that two sites measuring 9x12 meters each were not allotted, though they were intended for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49614 WP No. 20758 of 2025 petitioner. The impugned endorsement which restricts entitlement to 3593.70 square feet is inconsistent with the earlier allotment process and the petitioner’s established claim arising out of the relinquishment deed. Hence, interference is warranted and accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 31.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-P) is quashed. iii. Respondent No.2 shall consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of two alternative site measuring 9x12 meters each (totally measuring 2400 square feet) and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23