- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2642 OF 2026 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. B M SHIVA KUMAR S/O MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,. 2. SRI B S BASANTH KUMAR S/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT: NO.77, 2ND FLOOR 9TH CROSS, NEAR NARAYANA SCHOOL, BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGAORE -560026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE) AND: BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ACHAPPA P.B., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026 ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE LETTER DATED 21.06.2022 AND 11.12.2025, BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY SEEKING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISTION OF PETITIONERS' PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT OF RPC LAYOUT. 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 petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider their representations dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that land in Sy.No.499 of Kempapura Agrahara Village, Hosahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore, belonged to their ancestors and that there was a partition in the year 1955 in terms of which, the aforesaid property fell to the share of the father of petitioner No.1 and the grandfather of petitioner No.2. They contend that the land was acquired by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (henceforth referred to as ‘CITB’) in the year 1968, in terms of a preliminary notification followed by a final notification in the year 1972. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026 (ii) They contend that due to the acquisition of the land by the erstwhile CITB the revenue records were not mutated to their name and therefore, no notice was issued to them for payment of compensation. It is claimed that the entire land is acquired and the layout has already been formed, but the real owners of the property were not paid any compensation by either the erstwhile CITB or the respondent. The petitioner No.1 claims that he filed a representation on 21.06.2022 requesting the respondent to grant 40% of developed land in any layout developed by the respondent. The petitioners claim that there was no reply to the representation and therefore, the petitioner is before the Court seeking for direction to respondent to consider the representations. 3. The petition is opposed by the respondent, who has filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the land in question was already acquired and an award of Rs.69,776.25 was already passed and deposited before the Civil Court on 16.08.1973. He has also claimed that this deposit was made in order to enable the Kathedars to establish their right, title, interest of the property and to receive the compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026 Therefore, it is contended that there is no duty cast upon the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners. 4. If the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondent, a duty is cast upon the respondent to consider the representation and issue appropriate reply. It may be that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the representation. Nonetheless, that does not absolve the respondent of its statutory duty to reply to the representations submitted by the petitioners. 5. Under the circumstances, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation considers it appropriate to direct respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders. 6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35194 WP No. 2642 of 2026 ii. The respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 21.06.2022 and 11.12.2025 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the outcome of such consideration to the petitioners. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57