- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21230 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KONADASAPURA GRAMA, VIRGO NAGARA POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560049 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D., ADVOCATE) AND: BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND OF SITES VALUE OF RS.1,45,54,075/- RS,1,03,12,304 AND RS.10,64,111/- IN RESPECT OF SITE BEARING NO.730, 153/B, AND 272 OF NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE VIDE THREE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 22.04.2019 NO.BDA:DS-3:43/2018-19 NO.BDA-D-S-44/2018-19, NO.BDA-D-S-45/2018-19 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, A1, A2 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of three endorsements dated 22.04.2019 issued by the respondent demanding sum of Rs.1,45,54,075/-, Rs.1,03,12,304/- and Rs.10,64,111/- as the balance sital value. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that she was the owner of the properties bearing Sy.No.5 measuring 34 guntas, Sy.No.12 measuring 13 guntas, Sy.No.18 measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.19 measuring 15 guntas, in all 2 acres 22 guntas, situate in Konadasapura, Bengaluru East Taluk. The aforesaid lands were proposed for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification dated 12.12.1991 followed by a final notification dated 24.01.1996 for formation of a wholesale steel market. An award was approved on 02.11.1996 and the possession of the lands was handed over to the Engineering Department of the respondent on 09.01.1997, 20.12.1996 and 30.06.1997 respectively. The compensation amount of Rs.16,11,040/- was paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 accepted the award and voluntarily surrendered the lands belonging to her for public purposes. (ii) The petitioner contends that as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1989'), the respondent had passed a resolution dated 24.10.2011 to allot sites to the owners who had voluntarily surrendered their land. According to the said resolution, an owner is entitled for a site measuring 40' x 60' per acre subject to a maximum of 10 sites. Since the land belonging to the petitioner was 2 acres 22 guntas, she was entitled to allotment of two sites measuring 40' x 60' and one site measuring 30' x 40'. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the respondent issued an allotment letter dated 07.09.2018 allotting Site No.730 in 11th Block, Nagarabhavi II Stage, at a sum of Rs.31,74,500/-, Site No.153/B in 2nd Block, Nagarabhavi II Stage, at a sum of Rs.21,11,968/- and Site No.272 in 3rd Block, Nagarabhavi II Stage, at a sum of Rs.20,42,307/-. The petitioner had paid the said amounts. Following which, sale deeds were executed by the respondent conveying Site Nos.730, 153/B and 272. The petitioner contends that long after the execution of the sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 deeds, the respondent had issued endorsements dated 22.04.2019 demanding sum of Rs.1,45,54,075/-, Rs.1,03,12,304/- and Rs.10,64,111/- as the balance sital value. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said endorsements. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Rules, 1989, the petitioner had paid the rate of allotment fixed, consequent to which sale deeds were executed by the respondent. Therefore, he contends that the respondent cannot now turn around and claim that the full sital value was not paid and that the petitioner is bound to pay sum of Rs.1,45,54,075/-, Rs.1,03,12,304/- and Rs.10,64,111/-. The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the Rules, 1989 and submitted that allotment to a landloser, who voluntarily surrenders land, is by outright sale and hence, the respondent cannot now raise any claim. He therefore, submits that the impugned endorsements be set at nought. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the concerned Supervisor and Second Division Assistant, in the office of the Deputy Secretary-3 had processed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 the file of the petitioner for allotment of incentive sites without ascertaining the allotment price and were thereafter instrumental in getting sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that in respect of sites allotted in Nagarabhavi, II Stage, the allotment price is fixed at a sum of Rs.54,500/- per square meter, while what is collected from the petitioner is only sum of Rs.31,74,500/-, Rs.21,11,968/- and Rs.20,42,307/-. He therefore, contends that the impugned demands are made calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance price. He contends that when the respondent is entitled to the value of the site, the petitioner cannot escape from her liability to pay the price. He therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to pay the said sum of Rs.1,45,54,075/-, Rs.1,03,12,304/- and Rs.10,64,111/-. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The fact that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered her land for the purpose of wholesale steel market, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 entitled to allotment of an incentive site under the Rules, 1989. As per this scheme, any person who had lost land which was more than half an acre and less than 1 acre is entitled to be granted a site measuring 30' x 40' and 40' x 60' for more than 1 acre. Under Rule 4 of the Rules 1989, the allottee is bound to pay the value of the site fixed by the authority and also is liable to pay any other charges which the authority may levy in this behalf from time to time. The allotment is to be made on out- right sale basis and it is the allottee, who is bound to meet the expenses of registration. A perusal of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner would go to show that the same were executed by the Deputy Secretary-3 of the respondent and the sale considerations mentioned therein are sum of Rs.31,74,500/-, Rs.21,11,968/- and Rs.20,42,307/-. Even in the letters of allotment dated 07.09.2018, the allotment prices are fixed at sum of Rs.31,74,500/-, Rs.21,11,968/- and Rs.20,42,307/-. Therefore, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the respondent that the petitioner was bound to pay more than a sum of Rs.31,74,500/-, Rs.21,11,968/- and Rs.20,42,307/- towards allotment of the sites. Having regard to the fact that the respondent has already executed sale deeds and conveyed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26500 WP No. 21230 of 2019 the properties in question to the petitioner, the right if any of the respondent to demand higher consideration stood extinguished. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent is concluded and the respondent cannot lay any claim for any balance sital value. If the officials of the respondent are responsible in causing loss to the respondent, the respondent is bound to proceed against the concerned officials and recover the same from the said officials. This however does not justify the respondent in making a demand against the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements dated 22.04.2019 passed by the respondent are quashed. The respondent shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the concerned officials and recover the loss allegedly caused to it. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50