- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5332 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: S VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI C.SARANGAPANI, RESIDING AT NO.77-78, SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL AREA, 5TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/GPÁ-4/gÁeÁf£ÀUÀgÀ-J¸ï.J¸ï.L/77/2019-20 DATED 28.10.2019 AS AT ANNEXURE-W 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:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of an endorsement issued by the respondent bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/GPÁ- 4/gÁeÁf£ÀUÀgÀ-J¸ï.J¸ï.L/77/2019-20 dated 28.10.2019, by which he was called upon to furnish the encumbrance certificates, the letter of allotment and no-objection certificate from his siblings for executing a sale deed in his favour. The petitioner has also sought for direction to the respondent to execute a deed of conveyance in his favour in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule to the writ petition. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that based on an application filed by his mother an industrial site bearing No.77 at the industrial area, Rajajinagar, was allotted by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (henceforth referred to as ‘CITB’) on 06.10.1961. He claims that the cost of allotment was paid in full consequent to which, the erstwhile CITB executed a lease cum sale agreement on 25.10.1961 and issued a possession certificate in favour of the mother of petitioner and she thereafter constructed a factory building after obtaining - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 necessary plan and licence. He claims that the Khata of the property stood in her name and there is no encumbrance over the property other than a gift deed executed by her in favour of the petitioner on 08.04.2008, which was duly registered. The petitioner claims that after the execution of such a gift deed, he got his name entered in the municipal records and his name is entered in the property register as the person responsible for payment of property tax. (ii) He contends that he applied to the respondent for execution of a sale deed in his name on 12/13.08.2008. Since the respondent did not consider his request, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.46211/2014. The respondent filed a statement of objection in the said writ petition, accepting the case of the petitioner, but claimed that an endorsement dated 28.06.2012 was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish necessary documents but the said documents were not furnished and therefore action was not taken. W.P.No.46211/2014 was disposed off on 26.08.2015, directing the petitioner to furnish the documents called for and the respondent was directed to consider the same. The petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 claims that several representations were thereafter filed to the respondent seeking for a deed of conveyance in respect of the said property. The petitioner then sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the respondent refused to furnish information. Later, the respondent issued an endorsement dated 28.10.2019 refusing to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the industrial site in question was allotted to the mother of the petitioner and it is therefore her absolute property and she conveyed the same to the petitioner on 08.04.2008. He therefore contends that there is no impediment for the respondent to execute a conveyance, conveying the property in question to the petitioner. However, the respondent has issued the impugned endorsement and called upon the petitioner to furnish the nil encumbrance certificates for the period 01.04.1960 till date, copies of the original of the allotment letter issued by CITB and lease-cum-sale agreement and also a no-objection certificate from the other legal heirs. He contends - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 that the encumbrance certificate was already furnished to the respondent and the original lease-cum-sale agreement is misplaced and therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the same. He contends that as regards obtaining a no objection certificate from the brothers and sisters of the petitioner, he contends that when a gift deed is executed in the name of the petitioner, there is no need for a no objection certificate to be obtained from the brothers and sisters of the petitioner. Therefore, he contends that the respondent has insisted for these documents to protract the execution of a conveyance and hence seeks for a suitable direction. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent however contended that the petitioner is bound to return the lease-cum- sale agreement that is purportedly executed in favour of the petitioner’s mother by the erstwhile CITB. He does not dispute the fact that the petitioner had furnished the encumbrance certificate, but the same is not up to date. He also submits that the petitioner is bound to obtain the no-objection certificate from his other siblings, as they may later make a claim before the respondent to execute a deed of conveyance. He submits - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 that once the petitioner furnishes the document sought for in the impugned endorsement, the respondent would take steps to convey the property in favour of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. A perusal of the impugned endorsement would show that the respondent had called upon the petitioner to furnish: a) A nil encumbrance certificate from the period 01.04.1960 to till date. b) The original lease-cum-sale agreement issued and executed by the CITB. c) The no objection certificate from the other legal heirs of the mother of the petitioner. 7. The respondent has not rejected the claim of the petitioner to execute a conveyance in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be found fault with, as the same is done to protect the interest of the respondent. Having regard to the claim of the petitioner that the original lease-cum-sale agreement is lost, the petitioner is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28617 WP No. 5332 of 2021 permitted to furnish a certified copy of the same. As regards obtaining an objection certificate from the siblings of the petitioner, the same is necessary so as to shoot down any further litigation at the instance of the siblings of the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is upheld. The petitioner is directed to furnish (i) The nil encumbrance certificate from 1-4-60 till date; (ii) a certified copy of the lease-cum-sale agreement executed by erstwhile CITB in favour of the mother of the petitioner and also a no objection certificate from the siblings of the petitioner so as to enable the respondent to execute a conveyance in the name of the petitioner. If the petitioner complies with the above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent shall execute a deed of conveyance within a period of two months thereafter. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32