- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.12424 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: B.BASAVARAJU S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NANDI, 2ND CROSS, SIDDAROODANAGARA, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU – 560 001. 2. SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201. 3. SHIVAMOGGA BHADRAVATHI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHWIN S.HALADY, ADVCATE FOR R2; SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION 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 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the endorsement dated 22.02.2017 issued by the third respondent in No.ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ/-2/ೂೕ ೂೕ ೂೕ ೂೕ. ೌ ೌ ೌ ೌ./.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.ಇಇಇಇ-150/2016- 17/2008 produced as per Annexure-H to the writ petition. b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent to allot alternative site measuring 39.20 square meters available in any one of the layout formed by it to the petitioner in order to indemnify the shortage of measurement of the site in question or in the alternative, direct the third respondent to pay the value of the site measuring to an extent of 39.20 square meters. c) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the admitted facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 d) Award the cost of this proceeding. 2. One Ms.Valentine D'Souza had applied for allotment of a plot in the layout formed by respondent No.3, in pursuance of which, site No.E-150 was allotted to her and a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 27.02.1998. The allottee submitted a representation on 18.02.2000 to exempt the moratorium period of ten years and sought for permission to sell the said site, which request came to be allowed by an order dated 08.10.2001 subject to deposit of 15% of market value of the site in a sum of Rs.38,913/-. In pursuance of the said permission, the allottee sold the property to one Sri B.Panduranga Shet under a registered sale deed dated 13.11.2001. In pursuance of which, necessary entries were made in the records in the name of Sri Panduranga Shet. 3. In the year 2013-14, Sri Panduranga Shet wanting to sell the property, the petitioner agreed to purchase the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 same. In pursuance of which, a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2014 came to be executed. The petitioner, thereafter, wanting to put up construction on the property had applied for a loan and also got an inspection of the property to be made when it was found that instead of 216 square meters, the property measured only 176.80 square meters falling short by 39.20 square meters. 4. It is in pursuance thereof, a representation had been submitted by the petitioner on 30.01.2017 to make good the land to the extent of 39.20 square meters. The respondent replied to the same stating that at this length of time it is not responsible for the shortage of land. It was for the allottee to have verified the boundary and measurements and raised the issue at that time itself. Same not having been done, the respondent-Authority could not be held responsible there too. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 5. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted various representations including for allotment of an alternative site to an extent of 39.20 square meters, which were not considered by the respondents and it is in that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. The submission of Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent having executed a lease-cum-sale agreement for 216 square meters, it was their responsibility to make available the said extent of land. Not having done so, respondent No.3 being the authority of the State cannot shirk from its responsibility, but would have to make available the said land either in the said plot or to allot an alternative plot of the said dimensions to the petitioner. 7. Heard Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 8. Perusal of the papers indicates that an allotment was made in favour of Ms.Valentine D’Souza in the 1990s and a lease-cum-sale agreement came to be executed on 27.02.1998. Ms.Valentine D’Souza sold the property under a registered sale deed dated 13.11.2001. From the year 1998 to 2001 she did not raise any objection as regard to the measurement. The purchaser Sri B.Panduranga Shet having purchased the said property on 13.11.2001 sold the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2014 and for the said period of 13 years, he also did not raise any objection as regard to the measurement. 9. It is only after the petitioner purchased the property, then objections were raised claiming that the petitioner trusted respondent No.3 with the measurement had not got the property measured. When the petitioner wanted to put up construction on measurement finding the extent of the property to be less had submitted various representations as indicated supra. First representation - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 was submitted on 30.01.2017. Thus, it is clear that from the year 1998 till the year 2017 for nearly 20 years, there was no issue raised as regard to the measurement of the plot. The second purchaser from the original allottee that is the third in line is the only person who raised this issue. 10. I am of the considered opinion that at such length of time when the original allottee had not raised any issue as regard to the measurement, the purchaser from the subsequent purchaser who is governed by the principle of caveat emptor ought to have considered all the aspects including the measurement of the property before purchase cannot be allowed to raise such an issue after such a long period of time. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. 11. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to make application for allotment of a site, which shall be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2231 WP No. 12424 of 2018 considered without considering the ownership of the present site subject to seniority. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7