SMT.JAYAMMA vs THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 27299 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYAMMA
WIFE OF HANUMAIAH,
AGED: 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.109,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD,
CHECKPOST, BABASAHEBARAPALYA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. S.R.MALATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BENGALURU -560 020,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 020.

3. SMT. B. SHANTHI
W/O P. BALASUBRAMANIAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT 11 MILE,
MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-560060.



Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025



4. SMT. P. SUMANGALA
W/O B.C. CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.716,
TH TH
4 MAIN, 4 CROSS,
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU-560060.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LIKITH R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
AND 2;
SRI. R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURENDRA Y.S.,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI. B.K.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4
CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.01.2026)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO ALLOT OR OTHERWISE
ALIENATE THE SITES UNDER THE 60:40 SCHEME OR ANY INCENTIVE
SCHEME IN FAVOUR OF COPARCENERS OF THE FAMILY OR THIRD
PARTIES, IN RESPECT OF THE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES BEARING
SURVEY NO.17/4, MEASURING 7 ACRES AND 19 GUNTAS; SURVEY
NO.18/1, MEASURING 10 ACRES AND 6 GUNTAS AND SURVEY
NO.18/3, MEASURING 2 ACRES AND 27 GUNTAS ALL SITUATED AT
CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK, BANGALORE. THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS FROM MAKING ANY SUCH
ALLOTMENTS, ALIENATIONS, UNDER THE AFORESAID SCHEMES
WITH RESPECT TO THE AFOREMENTIONED LANDS, WHICH ARE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES, DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE CIVIL SUIT IN O.S. NO.7/2012 ON THE FILE OF

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU (PRESENTLY PENDING
CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER


1(i). The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to allot or
alienate the sites under the 60:40 Scheme or any Incentive
Scheme in favour of the coparceners of the family or third
parties, in respect of the joint family properties bearing:
(i) Sy. No.17/4 measuring 07 acres and 19 guntas;
(ii) Sy. No.18/1 measuring 10 acres and 6 guntas; and
(iii) Sy. No.18/3 measuring 2 acres and 27 guntas, all situate at
Challaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru, in view of the pendency of the suit in O.S
No.7/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (presently pending

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


consideration before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru).
(ii). The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
allot a Site under the 60:40 Scheme or any Incentive Scheme
in her favour in respect of the acquisition of the land in the
aforesaid Sy. Nos.17/4, 18/1 and 18/3 all situate at
Challaghatta village, by considering her representation dated
06.05.2025.
2(i). Petitioner claims that Mr.Marichannappa was the
kartha
of a family, who had six sons, namely, i. Mr. Dasappa, ii.
Mr. Chikkachennigappa, iii. Mr. Byrappa, iv. Mr. Muniyappa v.
Mr. Muninarasappa and vi. Mr. Thimmaiah. The petitioner
further claims that Mr. Marichannappa acquired the land in Sy.
No.18 of Challaghatta village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, measuring 11 acres and 19 guntas in terms of a sale
deed dated 10.04.1912 and that the land in Sy. No.18 was
thereafter bifurcated and divided into two parts, namely, Sy.
No.18/1 and Sy. No.18/3 measuring 10 acres and 06 guntas
and 02 acres and 27 guntas, respectively. Mr. Marichannappa

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


also purchased the land in Sy. No.17/4 of Challaghatta village
measuring 07 acres and 19 guntas. Petitioner contends that
after the death of Mr. Marichannappa in the year 1966, his legal
heirs succeeded to his estate and were in joint possession and
cultivation of the joint family properties. Mr.Byrappa, the third
son of Mr. Marichannappa died leaving behind his legal heirs
one amongst them was his son - Mr. Muniraju. So also
Mr.Thammaiah, the sixth son of Mr. Marichannappa died
leaving behind his legal heirs. Likewise, the other two sons of
Mr. Marichannappa, namely, Mr.Dasappa and Mr.
Chikkachennigappa died leaving behind their respective legal
heirs. Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Mr.Dasappa.
(ii). She contends that in the month of June 2011, she
along with other family members approached the son of
Mr.Marichannaappa, namely, Mr.Muniyappa and demanded her
share in the joint family properties. However, during the
discussion, she came to know that Mr.Chikkachennigappa, son
of Mr.Marichannappa and the other family members had
unauthorizedly sold certain portion of the properties to the
respondent No.3 herein in terms of a sale deed dated

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


29.08.2005 without the knowledge and consent of the
remaining family members, namely, Smt. Lakshmamma, Smt.
Muniyamma and Smt. Ashwathamma. Likewise, another portion
of land was sold to the respondent No.4 in terms of a sale deed
dated 29.08.2005. Petitioner claims that what remained after
such sale was 01 acre in Sy. No.18/3 and 02 acres in Sy.
No.18/1, which was not alienated but is in the joint possession
Kartha
and enjoyment of the of the joint family. Petitioner
claims that the sale deeds of even date i.e. 29.08.2005 which
were executed without the knowledge and consent of the other
void
family members mentioned above, have to be declared as
ab initio
. The members of the joint family, namely, Smt.
Lakshmamma, Smt. Muniyamma and Smt. Ashwathamma,
therefore, filed a suit in O.S No.7/2012 before the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, claiming their
th
1/48 share in the suit schedule properties. Petitioner is
arrayed as defendant No.3 in the said suit. Petitioner contends
that another member of the family, namely, Mr. Srinivasa B.T.
had filed O.S No.1827/2006, where she is arrayed as one of the
defendants and the said suit was then pending consideration

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


before the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru (presently before the IV Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru).
(iii). The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 had
proposed to acquire the aforesaid lands for the formation of
Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. She contends that the
respondent No.1 has rolled out a Scheme in terms of which
40% of developed land would be given to the land losers.
Petitioner claims that she and several joint family members had
given several representations to the respondent No.1 claiming
developed land as compensation. She contends that the
respondent No.1 had acted illegally and in a high handed
manner in trying to allot developed land in favour of
subsequent purchasers, namely, respondent Nos.3 and 4
during the pendency of the suit in O.S No.7/2012 for partition.
The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for a
direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to allot the
developed land / alternate site(s) to the respondent Nos.3 and
4 as well as the other members of the joint family.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
above contentions and prayed that a direction be issued to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to allot the developed land in lieu
of monetary compensation to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and
other members of the family of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 submitted that the petitioner had affixed her left thumb
mark to the sale deed dated 29.08.2005 executed in favour of
the respondent No.3 by which, 07 acres 19 guntas including 10
guntas of kharab land in Sy. No.17/4 and two parcels of land
measuring 37 guntas and 33 guntas in Sy. No.18/3 and 03
acres 04 guntas of land in Sy. No.18/1 were conveyed. He,
locus standi
therefore, contends that the petitioner has no to
approach this Court seeking for a direction to restrain the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 from allotting developed land to
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in lieu of monetary compensation. He
contends that the right, if any, of the petitioner is only in
respect of 03 acres 03 guntas, which is not alienated by the
joint family members and therefore, this writ petition as against

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


respondent Nos.3 and 4 is ill-conceived and is liable to be
rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not
dispute the fact that 07 acres 19 guntas including 10 guntas of
kharab
land in Sy. No.17/4 of Challaghatta village and two
parcels of land measuring 37 guntas and 33 guntas in Sy.
No.18/3 of Challaghatta village and 03 acres 04 guntas of land
in Sy. No.18/1 of Challaghatta village were conveyed to the
respondent No.3 in terms of a sale deed dated 29.08.2005 to
which the petitioner had affixed her left thumb mark. Once the
land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of
the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 was entitled to claim
compensation in the form of developed land in lieu of monetary
compensation. The petitioner having partaken in the execution
of a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3, cannot seek for
a direction to the respondent No.1 not to allot developed land
to the respondent No.3. Similarly, 05 acres 06 guntas of land in
Sy. No.18/1 of Challaghatta village was alienated in favour of
the respondent No.4 by the petitioner and other members of

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


the family in terms of a sale deed dated 29.08.2005, in respect
of which also, the petitioner cannot seek for any reliefs.
6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
disposed off directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to
release any incentive sites to the family members of the
petitioner, who are the other defendants in O.S No.7/2012
pending consideration before the III Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in respect of 01 acre of land in
Sy. No.18/3 and 02 acres in Survey No.18/1 of Challaghatta
village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was
notified for acquisition for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempe
Gowda Layout, until the disposal of the said suit in O.S.
No.7/2012, which is presently pending consideration before the
III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru.
7. Before parting from the case, this Court has noticed
a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner in snatching
an order from the hands of this Court by not impleading the
respondent Nos.3 and 4. This Court permitted the petitioner to
implead the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in terms of the order

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


dated 12.01.2026. Even after impleading the respondent Nos.3
and 4, the petitioner did not take any steps to restrict the
petition to 01 acre of land in Sy. No.18/3 and 02 acres of land
in Sy. No.18/1 of Challaghatta village. The petitioner was
granted an interim order on 08.07.2026 directing the
respondent No.3 not to change the nature of the Site allotted in
his favour by the respondent No.1 till the next date of hearing.
This, therefore, demonstrates that the petitioner is holding the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 at ransom. The process of the Court
cannot be allowed to be misused by unscrupulous elements like
the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay cost of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) payable to Sri Jayadeva
Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, Jayanagar
th
9 Block, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing
which, the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, shall raise appropriate demands in O.S
No.7/2012 to recover the costs as ordered by this Court.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42532
WP No. 27299 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010588582025


8. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2026
for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the
same stands disposed off.


Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE











SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8