- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25762 OF 2023 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVI KUMAR B. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI BASAVARAJU, R/AT NO.79, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, HOSABINNI LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMOD C. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VAIDYA RAVI LAXMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P. WEST, BENGALURU-20 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-20 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/07/2023 AT ANNEXURE-D GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 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 consider his representation dated 03.07.2023. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that during January 2020, the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.46 of Kommaghatta Village proposed to sell revenue site No.209 formed therein. Accordingly, the owner offered to assign his rights in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid property, provided the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the owner on 05.03.2020 in respect of revenue site No.209. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 (ii) The petitioner contends that the land bearing Sy. No.46 of Kommaghatta Village was notified for acquisition for formation of peripheral ring road part-II in terms of a preliminary notification dated 15.06.2006. Subsequently, in the year 2017, the respondents decided to grant alternate sites to the owners of revenue sites acquired for the said project in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Junjamma And Ors. vs The Bangalore Development Authority - ILR 2005 KAR 608. (iii) The petitioner claims that his vendor was unaware of the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.46 of Kommaghatta village and had not received any individual notice calling upon him to file objections. Later, a consent award was passed on 19.01.2019 without taking into consideration the layout formed in Sy.No.46 of Kommaghatta Village. The petitioner claims that the award was passed in the name of one Smt.Manjula Renukeshwara, though she had no subsisting right, title or interest in or over the land bearing Sy.No.46 of Kommaghatta Village to an extent of 1 acre 31 guntas which was acquired for the formation of Peripheral Ring Road Part-II. The petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 contends that the consent award was passed on the basis of the alleged consent of Smt. Manjula Renukeshwara, though none of the revenue site owners had consented to pass an award. The petitioner therefore contends that the consent award is not binding on him or the revenue site owners and consequently, the acquisition of the land in Sy.No.46 of Kommaghatta Village is not complete and the respondents are not entitled to take over possession of the acquired land. (iv) The petitioner also contends that the petitioner has not granted an alternate site as per the decision passed in Junjamma's case referred supra. Therefore, the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner or take over possession of the revenue sites formed in Sy.No.46. The petitioner claims that on 21.06.2023, the officers of respondent Nos.2 and 3 trespassed into the Site No.209 and adjoining revenue sites and forcibly tried to evict the petitioner and other revenue sites owners and demolished the existing structures and levelled the land for construction of Peripheral Ring Road Part II. In that regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.07.2023 requesting the respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 Nos.2 and 3 to allot an alternate site on behalf of his vendor and register the same in the name of the petitioner. (v) The petitioner claims that the said representation is not considered and hence, he is before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and prayed to consider the representation of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner is only an agreement holder under the erstwhile owner namely, Sri. M.S.Shivananjegowda. He therefore contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of an alternate site and is required to establish his right before the appropriate Civil Court and thereafter approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 for allotment of an alternate site. He contends that the representation filed by the petitioner has no basis or validity in the eyes of law and therefore, no direction could be issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. The petitioner has categorically stated in the writ petition that he entered into an agreement of sale to purchase Site No.209 formed in Sy. No.46 of Kommaghatta Village and that the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy.No.46 of Kommaghatta Village had consented to pass an award in respect of the aforesaid land. The petitioner does not have a concluded transaction in his name. However, he seeks allotment of an alternate site in his name based on the agreement of sale executed by his vendor. 7. In the above circumstances, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3, as the petitioner has no concluded right to seek for a direction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the allotment of an alternate site. 8. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued in this petition in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33301 WP No. 25762 of 2023 to work out his remedy before the Civil Court and thereafter approach the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for appropriate relief. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3