- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31597 WP No. 25589 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25589 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. R.SIDDALINGAPPA S/O B.K. RAMCHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1379, BHARATHNAGARA, DWARAKAVASA ROAD, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEDEEP N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. 2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGLAORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT REMAINING 50% OF THE LAND TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SPECIAL DAMAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS AS PER THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION IN TERMS OF JUDGEMENT OF Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31597 WP No. 25589 of 2015 THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.25751/2012 [LA-BDA] DATED 06.08.2014 VIDE ANNEXURES-B AND C. 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 mandamus to direct the respondents to allot the remaining 50% of the land along with the special damages and other benefits as per the resolution of the respondent No.1 – Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) on Subject No.392/11 and in terms of the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by this Court in W.P No.25751/2012. 2. The petitioner claims that he was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.32 of Manganahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 13 guntas. The respondent – Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘the BDA’) had used up 4.27 guntas of the above land for formation of a road connecting Sir M.Vishweshwaraiah layout, without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 – BDA resolved to convey 50% of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31597 WP No. 25589 of 2015 developed land and accordingly, the petitioner executed a relinquishment deed dated 25.03.2015 in favour of the respondent No.1 - BDA relinquishing his rights in respect of 4.27 guntas of land against receipt of 50% of developed land. The petitioner claims that in similar circumstances, the respondent No.1 - BDA has granted 100% of land utilized to various other land losers and the same is evident from the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.25751/2012. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for similar benefit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and submitted that in some cases, the respondent No.1 has allotted 100% of land that was used unauthorizedly and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the balance 50% of land. He also relies upon the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P No.46598/2013. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted 50% of developed land from the respondent No.1 – BDA and had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31597 WP No. 25589 of 2015 executed a relinquishment deed dated 25.03.2015. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot now make a u- turn and claim that he is entitled to 100% of developed land. He also contends that what is allotted to the petitioner is developed land and it has been the consistent policy of the respondents to allot 50% of developed land. He also contends that if 45% of the land is utilized towards civic amenities and other amenities as prescribed under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, then what would remain is only 55% of the land which could be used for forming sites. He, therefore, contends that the grant of 50% of developed land by the respondent No.1 – BDA to the petitioner is just and reasonable and does not warrant any enhancement. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show in which of the cases, the respondents have allotted 100% of land to land losers. She also contends that the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.46598/2013 was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein, in W.A. No.1536/2016 and a Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 12.09.2019, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31597 WP No. 25589 of 2015 allowed the said writ appeal by setting the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The petitioner has lost 4.27 guntas of land in Sy. No.32 of Manganahalli Village for formation of a road connecting Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah layout by the respondent No.1 - BDA. The respondents have owned up their mistake in using up a land belonging to the petitioner without resorting to the process known to law. They have also made amends by allotting 50% of developed land to the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner having once accepted 50% of developed land, cannot now turn around and claim that he is entitled to the balance extent of developed land. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, 55% of land would be available for development of house sites while the remaining 45% would be utilized towards amenities etc. Therefore, the value of 50% of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31597 WP No. 25589 of 2015 developed land allotted to the petitioner is more or less equivalent to the value of 4.27 guntas of undeveloped land belonging to the petitioner. Under the above circumstances, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51