- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 27945 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. MRS.ALKA RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR, W/O LATE RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE. 2. MRS.SUCHETHA, W/O C M NAHUSH, D/O LATE RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE. 3. MR.SUMANTH RAJASHEKAR SINDHUR, S/O LATE RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION - BUSINESS. ALL ARE R/AT: SHUKRAVARPET, WARD NO.13, SAVANNUR, HAVERI - 581 118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM.M., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARSHA P BANAD., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. MR.R.SRIRAMA S/O LATE.N.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT 162, YELETHOTADAPALYA GOLLAHALLI, ANJANAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 108. 4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, RAJENDRANAGAR, HAVERI - 581 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.S.ARUN., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MURUGESH V.CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.A.C.CHETHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.28/2015 PRODUCED AT ANNXURE-E OF THIS WRIT PETITION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE A SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SITE NO.90/B IN HSR, SECTOR-3, BENGALURU MEASURING 40X60 AS PER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 ALLOTMENT LETTER DTD 05.02.2007 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A OF THIS WP. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present Writ Petition has been filed against the decision of the Enquiry Committee headed by Justice Farooq, retired Judge of this Court. The said three member Committee was constituted vide Judgment dated 25.08.2012 and 07.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.23475/2010 C/w. W.P.No.1032/2006 to enquiry into the legality/illegality in allotment of G-Category sites. 2. Late Rajashekar Sindhur was a Member of Legislative Assembly. He was resident of Shiggaon Village, Savannur Hobli and Taluk, Haveri District. He was allotted a site measuring 40 X 60 feet by the Bengaluru - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 Development Authority (for short 'the BDA'), the Authority which has earned immense name and fame for acts of commissions and omissions. The said allotment was made at Hosur Sarjapur Road III Sector, Bengaluru on 22.09.2006. 3. The Allottee on affidavit stated before the Committee that he had been resident of Karnataka for more than 15 years and neither he nor his wife nor any depending family member owns a site or house within the jurisdiction of the BDA. It was further stated on affidavit that neither he nor any of his family member had been allotted a house or site by any of the Hosing Society or Housing Board coming under the control of the State Government. The Committee however found that on the time of recording the statement of the Allottee on 18.10.2016, the Allottee had specifically admitted his wife's name Smt.Alka and a site bearing No.9, LIG was allotted in her favor by the Karnataka Housing Board. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 4. The Allottee undertook to produce the certified copy of the title deed in respect of the site allotted in favor of his wife Smt.Alka. 5. Despite taking time thrice, the counsel who was representing the Allottee did not produce any document relating to Site No.9 allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board in favor of his wife Smt.Alka. 6. Considering the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short '1984 Rules'), particularly Rule 10, the Committee held that as per Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 10, any allotment in favor of the Allottee or his spouse would disentitle the spouse or the husband to approach the Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of a site under 'General' Category, which is of preference conferred by the Bangalore Development Authority on influential people such as legislators, bureaucrats etc., and the Committee found that the allotment of G-Category site in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 favor of the Allottee was against the mandate of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 10 of 1984 Rules, the Committee recommended for cancellation of allotment of the G-Category site in favor of the Allottee. The said recommendation of the Committee is under challenge before this Court in the present Writ Petition. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment made by the BDA in favor of Late Rajashekar Sindhur was before the allotment of a site bearing No.9, LIG by the Karnataka Housing Board in favor of his wife. It is submitted that Late Rajashekar Sindhur was allotted a site by the BDA bearing Site No.90/B measuring 40 X 60 feet in Hosur-Sarjapur Road, Sector-III on 22.09.2006, whereas the housing board had allotted a site to the wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur on 12.02.2007. 8. It is further submitted that the said site No.9, LIG was purchased by the wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 and it was not an allotment on an application filed by the wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur. 9. It is further submitted that at the time of allotment of site by BDA, neither the Allottee nor his spouse nor any of his dependents had been allotted a site by the Society/Authority under the control of the State Government, the Committee's finding that the allotment of site by BDA in favor of Late Rajashekar Sindhur was against the provisions of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 10 of 1984 Rules was incorrect and the said recommendation is liable to be set-aside. 10. The said submissions have been supported by the BDA. 11. Mr.Murugesh V.Charati., fairly submits that as on the date when the BDA allotted a site in favor of Late Rajashekar Sindhur, there was no allotment of any of the site in favor of his wife or any of his dependents. This - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 submission is made on instruction of the Deputy Secretary-I, BDA who is present in the Court. 12. Mr.H.L.Pradeep., counsel appearing for the Karnataka Housing Board also supports the contention of the petitioner that the allotment/purchase of sites bearing No.4, LIG and 9, LIG in favor of wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur, was after the allotment made by the BDA and therefore, the allotment made in favor of Late Rajashekar Sindhur would not be hit by the provisions of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 10 of 1984 Rules. 13. After the allotment was cancelled by the BDA on the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committee, the site in question was allotted in favor of respondent No.3. The allotment in favor of respondent No.3 of the site in question was only on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee for canceling the site allotted in favor of Late Rajashekar Sindhur. Once we find that the recommendation of the Committee is not sustainable, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 allotment of the site in favor of respondent No.3 also cannot be sustained. Therefore, we restore the site in favor of the legal heirs of Late Rajashekar Sindhur. However, respondent No.3 as stated by the BDA shall be allotted two sites, measuring 40 X 60 feet and 30 X 40 feet in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, wherever the sites are available and not under litigation. 14. New sites in favor of respondent No.3 shall be allotted within the period of 15 days in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. Respondent No.3 is directed to return to the BDA, the original allotment letter and other documents which have been given to him in pursuance to the allotment of site in question. 15. We however, observe that the allotment of site under G-Category to the influential people was an arbitrary and colorable exercise of the power in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a malafide - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB WP No. 27945 of 2024 decision to confer privilege on the persons who do not deserve such discretion. 16. We are informed that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the provisions for allotting G-Category sites to the influential people. We therefore, stop at the aforesaid observation. 17. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this Writ Petition in terms of the order passed above. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1