- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 954 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. A.V. KANTHALAKSHMI W/O VENKATACHALAPATHY SHETTY AGED 74 YEARS R/AT NO.365, 7TH MAIN ROAD HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560040 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.453, 4TH B CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU - 560020 2. SRI. PRAKASH P. MUMMIGATTI S/O LATE P.B.MUMMIGATTI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.2267, 9TH MAIN, 'D' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-50010. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT 03.06.2022 BEARING NO. BDA/MA HA AND /MA MA/329/2022-2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M PRODUCED HEREIN AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an endorsement bearing No.BDA/MAHA&/MAMA/329/2022-23 dated 03.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.1. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to execute a deed of absolute sale conveying the Site No.725 described in the schedule to the writ petition in her favour. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that she was allotted a Site No.725 formed in Sy.Nos.109, 110, 111 and 137 of Kempapura Agrahara by the respondent No.1, which now lies in 'B' and ASO Block, Railway Pipeline, Chord Road Layout, (RPC Layout Hampinagar), Vijayanagar, measuring East to West - 40 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 feet and North to South - 30 feet. The petitioner claims that a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 21.03.1991 was executed and possession of the site was also delivered, which was evidenced by a possession certificate dated 23.03.1991. She claims that she is in possession of the said site. She contends that she had filed several representations requesting the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed, which were of no avail and therefore, she filed W.P.No.23692/2011. This Court in terms of an Order dated 29.07.2011, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It was also clarified that in the event, if there is any claim of third person regarding the site so conveyed, the dispute would essentially be between the petitioner and the rival claimant. (ii) The petitioner claims that the respondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.7984/2011 for perpetual injunction. He also filed Review Petition No.567/2011 to review the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23692/2011. The review petition was dismissed in terms of an order dated 27.09.2012. The respondent No.2 along with others then filed W.P.Nos.30769-772/2012 against the respondent No.1 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 others seeking for a direction not to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, which were also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner thereafter called upon the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23692/2011. (iii) The petitioner contends that though the legal section of the respondent No.1 was in favour of executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 failed to execute a sale deed for reasons unknown. Petitioner contends that out of 42 allottees, the respondent No.1 has executed sale deeds in favour of 41 allottees except the petitioner. The petitioner was again forced to approach this Court in W.P.No.3841/2021 seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed which was allowed in terms of an order dated 17.04.2021. Since the respondent No.1 has failed to comply the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed CCC No.293/2022 and on receipt of the notice of the contempt petition, an endorsement dated 03.06.2022 was issued by the respondent No.1 stating that the sites allotted to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were the same and that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 the sale deed would be executed after conclusion of O.S.No.7984/2011 filed by the respondent No.2. (iv) Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.725 and a lease- cum-sale agreement was executed and a possession certificate was also handed over. He contends that this Court after perusing the claim of the petitioner had directed the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed and in case of any dispute between the petitioner and the rival claimant, the same would be subject matter of a dispute. He contends that respondent No.2 has challenged the said order in a review petition which was dismissed. Therefore, as regards the respondent No.2, he has lost the challenge to the claim of the petitioner for a sale deed in respect of the property bearing Site No.725. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 has no other alternative than to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner shall work out her remedy against the respondent No.2 in O.S.No.7984/2011. He therefore, prays that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 impugned endorsement dated 03.06.2022 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however submitted that an inspection was done in respect of the properties claimed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and it felt that both the properties claimed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 overlapped. Therefore, a policy decision was taken to execute a sale deed in favour of the person, who succeeds in the suit filed by the respondent No.2. He thus contends that the respondent No.1 cannot be compelled to execute a sale deed in respect of a property which is doubtful. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 6. The petitioner claims that she was allotted a site by the respondent No.1 and a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 21.03.1991 was executed and possession of the site allotted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 was handed over, which was evidenced by a possession certificate dated 23.03.1991. If the petitioner has complied the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement, the respondent No.1 is bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. This is the finding recorded by this Court in W.P.No.23692/2011. The respondent No.2 has challenged the finding recorded by this Court in W.P.No.23692/2011 unsuccessfully. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. However, any sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner shall always be subject to establishing her title in the suit filed by the respondent No.2 in O.S.No.7984/2011. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.1 is without any basis and the respondent No.1 is bound to conclude its statutory obligation in executing the sale deed and conclude the transaction. 8. Hence, this petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.BDA/MAHA&/MAMA/329/2022-23 dated 03.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 is quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31900 WP No. 954 of 2023 The respondent No.1 is directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to establish her title before the Civil Court in O.S.No.7984/2011 filed by the respondent No.2 and defend her possession in accordance with law. 9. The petitioner shall furnish all requisite documents to enable the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The respondent No.1 shall execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of submission of the documents. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53