- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION No.11298/2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. A. RAJESHWARI W/O A. SATHYANARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, 4TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, H.S.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, H.S.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102. - 2 - 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA DASAREDDY W/O M.S. SHANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.479, II PHASE, LINE-11, ADARSHA FARM RETREAT VILLAS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 12.12.2012 BEARING REGISTERED NO.2579/2012-13 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-L) EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.1604 MEASURING 322.82 SQUARE METERS SITUATED AT HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2, BENGALURU 560102 AND THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.12.2012 (ANNEXURE-M) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ILLEGALLY AS THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE E AUCTION NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BDA FOR THE DIMENSION OF THE SITE IS 295.38 SQUARE METERS AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL ELIEFS TO THE PETITIONER CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ANNEXURES AT-L & M. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09/01/2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - CAV O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure- L) executed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of Site No.1604 situated at HSR layout, Bengaluru, to the extent it conveys 322.82 square meters as against the auction extent of 295.38 square meters and for consequential direction to the BDA to rectify the measurement and restore the deficit extent of the petitioner’s site No.1604/A. 2. The petitioner is the purchaser of Site No.1604/A situated at HSR layout, Bengaluru measuring 222.83 square meters (40x60 feet) purchased under a registered sale deed dated 30.08.2012 from the original allottee Smt. K. Somalatha, who had been allotted the site by the BDA and issued possession certificate on 13.01.2012. Adjacent to the petitioner's site is Site No.1604, which was notified by the BDA for E-Auction measuring 295.38 square meters. Respondent No.4 participated in the auction and was - 4 - declared as the highest bidder. An auction confirmation letter was issued on 17.08.2012. It is the petitioner's case that though auction notification and confirmation letter specified the extent of Site No.1604 as 295.38 square meters, the BDA executed a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012 in favour of respondent No.4 for an extent of 322.82 square meters, which is in excess of the notified extent. The petitioner contends that such excess conveyance has resulted in encroachment of approximately ‘24.09 square meters from the southern boundary’, thereby reducing the extent of her site. Upon noticing discrepancy in the measurements, the petitioner submitted representation to the BDA and subsequently, approached the Special Task Force. A spot inspection was conducted and a report was submitted, indicating variation. 3. The BDA has filed an affidavit admitting certain measurement discrepancies in the layout, stating that there exists a North-South length shortage of approximately 0.51 meters in the layout and the variation may be attributable to - 5 - dimensional errors at the time of formation and execution of the sale deeds. 4. Respondent No.4 has filed objections and a memo contending that any reduction in the petitioner’s site is attributable to cumulative encroachment from southern side and not due to excess conveyance in favour of respondent No.4. 5. Aggrieved by the inaction of the BDA in rectifying the alleged encroachment and by the execution of the sale deed for excess extent in favour respondent No.4, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.01.2012, the vendor of the petitioner was allotted Site No.1604/A situated at HSR layout, measuring 40x60 feet. Thereafter, a registered sale deed dated 04.08.2012 was executed in favour of the vendor. A possession certificate dated 06.08.2012 was issued in favour of the vendor after inspection, which is produced at Annexure-D. Subsequently, - 6 - the petitioner purchased the said site under a registered sale deed dated 30.08.2012. 7. It is further submitted that Site No.1604, which is a corner site adjacent to the petitioner's property was notified for auction on 16.07.2012 (Annexure-H) measuring 295.38 square meters. The auction was confirmed on 17.08.2012 for the said extent of 295.38 square meters. However, it is contended that the BDA executed a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure-L) in favour of respondent No.4 to an extent of 322.82 square meters and the possession was handed over on 17.12.2012. According to the petitioner, the marginal increase in extent from 295.38 square meters as per auction notification and confirmation (322.82 square meters) as reflected in the sale deed amounts to an excess of approximately 4.5 feet in measurement, which has resulted in a reduction of the petitioner's site by 24.09 square meters. - 7 - 8. It is contended that such excess conveyance in favour of respondent No.4 has directly affected the southern boundary and resulted in encroachment into her property. 9. Learned counsel for the BDA, placing reliance on the affidavit dated 20.02.2025, submits that the measurement table at Sl. No.1 that the description in measurement is not attributable to any deliberate act on the part of the BDA. It is contended that the layout, as formed on ground, shows a marginal variation in the total North- South length, and that the difference arises on account of dimensional variation in the layout as a whole. It is further submitted that the variation in extent does not constitute fraudulent or illegal conveyance and that the BDA has acted in accordance with the measurements available at the time of execution of the sale deed. 10. Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 referring to the statement of objections contends that there is no encroachment whatsoever in the - 8 - petitioner's property. It is submitted that Site No.1604 was legitimately conveyed under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012 for valuable consideration and the extent mentioned therein is based on official measurement. It is argued that once a registered sale deed has been executed and possession delivered, the same cannot be termed as an encroachment merely on account of measurement discrepancy. It is further contended that if any grievance subsist regarding extent or title, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1 (Satya Pal Anand) to contend that a cancellation of a registered sale deed cannot be sought in writ petition and that disputed questions of fact relating to extent, encroachment or fraud must be adjudicated in civil proceedings. It is therefore submitted that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. 1 (2016) 10 SCC 767 - 9 - 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has established that the conveyance executed by the BDA in respect of the adjoining Site No.1604 has resulted in reduction of the extent of petitioner's Site No.1604/A and if so, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?” 13. In Satya Pal Anand’s case, the question considered by the Apex Court was, whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is duty bound to declare registered deeds between private parties as void ab initio and cancel the same, particularly when aggrieved party had already resorted to an alternative statutory remedy. The Apex Court held that dispute relating to cancellation of registered instruments between private parties should ordinarily be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. The Apex Court has formulated the following points for consideration: - 10 - “23.1. “(a) Whether in the fact situation of the present case, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition? 23.2. (b) Whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty-bound to declare the registered deeds (between the private parties) as void ab initio and to cancel the same, especially when the aggrieved party (appellant) has already resorted to an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the 1960 Act before the competent forum whilst questioning the action of the Society in cancelling the allotment of the subject plot in favour of the original allottee and unilateral execution of an extinguishment deed for that purpose? 23.3. (c) Even if the High Court is endowed with a wide power including to examine the validity of the registered extinguishment deed and the subsequent registered deeds, should it foreclose the issues which involve disputed questions of fact and germane for adjudication by the competent forum under the 1960 Act?” (emphasis supplied) - 11 - 14. At paragraph No.25, the Apex Court has answered the Issue Nos.(a) to (c) as under: “25. It is a well-established position that the remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot be oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy. The fact that the party may have several remedies for the same cause of action, he must elect his remedy and cannot be permitted to indulge in multiplicity of actions. The exercise of discretion to issue a writ is a matter of granting equitable relief. It is a remedy in equity. In the present case, the High Court declined to interfere at the instance of the appellant having noticed the above clinching facts. No fault can be found with the approach of the High Court in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction because of the conduct of the appellant in pursuing multiple proceedings for the same relief and also because the appellant had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy to which he has already resorted to. This view of the High Court has found favour with Dipak Misra, J. We respectfully agree with that view.” 15. The present case stands on a different footing. The conveyance in question is not a transaction between the - 12 - private parties. The sale deed has been executed by the Bangalore Development Authority, a statutory authority, pursuant to an auction conducted by it. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the action of the statutory authority in conveying an extent excess beyond the notified extent and impact of such conveyance on the adjoining site already conveyed in favour of the petitioner's vendor. Therefore, the decision relied upon by respondent No.4 does not preclude this Court from examining the action of the statutory authority. 16. From the material on record, it is evident that the Site No.1604 was notified for auction measuring 295.38 square meters. However, the registered sale deed executed by the BDA conveys an extent of 322.82 square meters. 17. A spot inspection has already been conducted and discrepancies in the measurement have been noticed. The affidavit filed by the BDA also acknowledges dimensional variation in the layout. The petitioner purchased Site - 13 - No.1604/A pursuant to allotment made by the BDA in favour of her vendor. There is no allegation that the petitioner has committed any encroachment or illegality. When a statutory authority undertakes formation of layouts and execution of conveyances, accuracy of measurements becomes a matter of legal responsibility. An allottee cannot be made to suffer on account of errors attributable to the authority responsible for formation of the layout and execution of the sale deed. Since a spot inspection has already been conducted and discrepancies in measurement have been noticed, directing a fresh survey would unnecessarily prolong the dispute. For the forgoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Bangalore Development Authority shall examine the inspection report and determine the actual reduction extent suffered by the petitioner's Site No.1604/A. - 14 - ii. The Bangalore Development Authority shall take appropriate steps to restore the deficit extent, if feasible, or compensate the petitioner by paying the prevailing market value of the deficit extent. iii. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court, if so advised, v. All contentions of the parties are kept open. iv. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM