- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11818 OF 2015 (LA-KHB) BETWEEN: SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O D. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HINNAKKI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562106 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, "CAUVERY BHAVAN" K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, "CAUVERY BHAVAN", K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDA BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORESEMENT DATED 09.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-BOARD IN NO.KHB/SLAO/505/2014-2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 the endorsement bearing No.PÀUÀȪÀÄA/«¨sÀƸÁéC/505/2014-2015 dated 09.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to allot 50% of the developed land in respect of the land belonging to her in Sy. No.95/2 of Hinnakki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 03 Acres 37 guntas, which is acquired for formation of Suryanagar Phase 2 layout and issue an allotment letter forthwith to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 03 Acres 37 guntas in Sy. No.95/2 of Hinnakki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, which was acquired by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 respondent No.1 for formation of Suryanagar Phase 2 layout. Petitioner claims that the State Government had issued an order dated 02.12.2010 directing the respondent No.1 - Board to provide developed sites to the land owners at the ratio of 60:40 in lieu of cash compensation. Consequently, she gave a representation to the respondent No.1 - Board to allot 40% of the developed sites. She also filed a writ petition in W.P No.41110/2010 before this Court for quashing the preliminary notification dated 01.04.2005. The said petition was dismissed in terms of the order dated 29.06.2012 holding that the land in question cannot be deleted from acquisition as the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme formulated by the State Government. She contends that the respondent No.1 at its Board meeting held on 24.11.2009 passed a resolution to provide 40% of the developed land in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. This was followed by a resolution dated 19.06.2012 in terms of which, the respondent No.1 resolved to allot 40% of the developed land in respect of Giddenahalli, Jigala, Yadavanahalli and Adhigondanahalli of Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, to land losers. However, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 09.01.2015 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 the petitioner stating that she is entitled to 8232.85 ft. as per the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer and hence, made a provisional allotment of 8232.85 ft. in Suryanagar Phase 2 layout. When questioned as to why 40% of developed land amounting to 9583 ft. was not granted to her, she was informed that 9583 ft. was applicable only in respect of acquisition of land for Suryanagar Phase 3 layout and that the same yardstick is not applicable to Suryanagar Phase 2 layout. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said endorsement, is before this Court. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter alia contending that the principle of allotment of developed land applicable to Suryanagar Phase 3 cannot be applied to Suryanagar Phase 2 and that the respondent No.2 was justified in issuing the impugned endorsement. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the State Government has already passed an order directing the respondent No.2 to grant 40% of developed land - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 in lieu of cash compensation, the impugned endorsement granting 8232.85 ft. is illegal and calls for interference. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that though the State Government had issued a directive to the respondent No.1 to grant 40% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation, the same was not made applicable to all layouts but specifically was made applicable to Suryanagar Phase 3 layout and not to Suryanagar Phase 2 layout. He, therefore, contends that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government has issued an Order bearing No.ªÀE 46 PÀUÀȪÀÄA 2021 dated 14.09.2021 in terms of which, it had extended the compensation package to 50% of developed land in respect of Suryanagar Phase II. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with 50% of developed land subject to the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate did not dispute the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3. 10. It is not in dispute that the State Government had issued the Government Order dated No.ªÀE 46 PÀUÀȪÀÄA 2021 dated 14.09.2021 in terms of which, it had extended the compensation package of 40% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation in respect of those lands that were acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962. It is also not in dispute that the State Government has later reviewed the said Government order and has granted the benefit of 50% of developed land even in respect of Suryanagar Phase II. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner was denied the benefit of 50% of developed land as compensation. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015 09.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 is arbitrary and colourable and hence warrants interference. 11. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.PÀUÀȪÀÄA/«¨sÀƸÁéC/505/2014-2015 dated 09.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to grant 50% of developed land in Sy.No.95/2 of Hinnakki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 03 Acres 37 guntas, in lieu of cash compensation to the petitioner, including what is already granted to the petitioner till date. This shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62