- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27364 WP No. 12564 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12564 OF 2026 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAVENI, W/O LATE SRI. NARASIMHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, PARVATHAMMA LAYOUT, THINDHLU, VIDYARANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ALWYN SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RENY SEBASTIAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BDA PRECINCTS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY/ ALLOTMENT SECTION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BDA PRECINCTS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27364 WP No. 12564 of 2026 3. SRI. ARVIND N., S/O LATE SRI. NARASIMHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.3685, 20D MAIN ROAD, SOMESHWARA BADAVANE, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) DIRECTING RESPONDENT 1 NOS. AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.03.2026 AT ANNEXURE - E FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF SITE NO.11 (MEASURING 50' X 80'), SITUATED AT RMV 2ND STAGE, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI BENGALURU, OR ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE SITE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIMEFRAME AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27364 WP No. 12564 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 and 2 to consider her representation for allotment of site No. 11 situated at RMV second stage, Lottegollahally, Bengaluru or any other alternative site. She has also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider her claim and not to act upon or unilaterally finalise the request made by respondent No.3 dated 27.01.2024 without considering her representation. 2. The petitioner contends that the aforementioned site was allotted by respondent No.1 in favour of her husband on 30.06.2009. She claimed that her husband had paid a sum of ₹8,62,996/- being the initial deposit and fulfilled all requirements. She contends that she is the second wife and she took care of her husband. Respondent No.3 is the son born from the first marriage and that he was not attending to or taking care of his father. She claimed that respondent No.3 had admitted his father to a rehabilitation centre for treatment of alcoholism and during that period, she was prevented from meeting her husband. She contends that after the death of her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27364 WP No. 12564 of 2026 husband, respondent No.3 forcibly evicted her from the matrimonial home by producing a fake Will of his father. 3. The petitioner claims that she had filed a suit in OS.No.1681/2025 for partition and separate possession and also had challenged the validity of the said will. She contends that during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.3 had filed an application before respondent No.1 and 2 on 27.01.2024 seeking allotment of the aforementioned site or any alternate site in his individual name. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 24.03.2026 requesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider her claim before considering the request of the respondent No.3. 4. The petitioner contends that the said representation is not considered and is therefore before this court seeking for a direction to consider her representation before considering the request of the respondent No.3. 5. Respondent No.3 had purportedly made a request before respondent No.1 and 2 for allotment of Site No. 11 at RMV second stage, Lottegollahalli, Bengaluru or any other alternate site. If the petitioner has any claim against the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27364 WP No. 12564 of 2026 respondent No.3, which she has raised in OS No. 1681/2025, she has to work out her remedy in the said suit. 6. Ultimately, if site is allotted to respondent No.3 the same could be included in the suit filed by the petitioner in OS.No.1681/2025. The petitioner cannot stop respondent Nos.1 and 2 from allotting the site to respondent No.3 as only if a site is allotted to respondent No.3, the petitioner could claim right in the site. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19