SRI. K. N. PRAKASH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022
R

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO. 21551 OF 2022 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI.K.N.PRAKASH
S/O.K.N.NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.76/2,
TH TH
4 MAIN, 15 CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 055.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.BHAGWAT., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SATISH.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by
REKHA R
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.

3. SMT.PALLAVI RAM,
W/O.B.A.RAM,

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.T1/194,
PEBBLE BAY APARTMENTS,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, BEHIND R.M.V. CLUB,
BANGALORE NORTH,
R.M.V. II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 094.

4. THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE FOR
'G' CATEGORY SITES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
TH
5 FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.H.B. COMPLEX,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.S.ARUNA., AGA FOR R1;
SRI.K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 4;
SRI.SANDEEP PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2, PERTAINING
TO THE IMPUGNED ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 07/06/2010
(ANNEXURE-H), IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/04/2021
(ANNEXURE-L) AND THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED DATED
23/02/2022 (ANNEXURE-M) b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED
07/06/2010 BEARING NO.BEMAPRAA UKAA-4:RMV-
ND
2:253:A:2010-11 ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT
(ANNEXURE-H), IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/04/2021
TH
PASSED BY THE 4 RESPONDENT IN INQUIRY NO.1/584/2021
(ANNEXURE-L) AND THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED DATED
ND
23/02/2022 EXECUTED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

RD
OF THE 3 RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-M) c) PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER, INCLUDING COST OF THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 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 T.M.NADAF)
The petitioner is before us invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, calling in question the order of
allotment of site bearing No.253A in favor of the third
respondent vide Annexure-H, the impugned order dated
06.04.2021 passed by the fourth respondent vide
Annexure-L and the impugned Sale Deed dated
23.02.2022 executed by the second respondent in favor of
the third respondent vide Annexure-M.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

2. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition
seeking following:
" PRAYER
a) CALL FOR RECORDS from the Respondents No.1
and 2, pertaining to the impugned Allotment Letter
dated 07/06/2010 (ANNEXURE-H), impugned Order
dated 06/04/2021 (ANNEXURE-J) and the
impugned Sale Deed dated 23/02/2022
(ANNEXURE-M);
b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned
Allotment Letter dated 07/06/2010 bearing
No.BemAPraa: UKaa-4:RMV-2:253:A:2010-11
nd
issued by the 2 Respondent (ANNEXURE-H),
impugned Order dated 06/04/2021 passed by the
th
4 Respondent in Inquiry No.1/584/2021
(ANNEXURE-L) and the impugned Sale Deed dated
nd
23/02/2022 executed by the 2 Respondent in
rd
favour of the 3 Respondent (Annexure-M), in the
interest of justice and equity.
c) PASS any other Order which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit, including cost of the Writ Petition, in the
interest of justice and equity."
3. The brief facts leading to file the present Writ
Petition are as under:

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.1) It is the case of the petitioner that the land in
Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village was allotted to the
share of one Smt.Muninanjamma under the Partition
Deed dated 29.07.1957 in her family. The said
Muninanjamma and others thereafter sold the land in
Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village to one
Sri.O.Sudarsan (vendor of the petitioner herein). The
said O.Sudarsan thereafter, formed sites in the said
survey number.
3.2) On 03.01.1977, the second respondent - Bengaluru
1
Development Authority issued a Preliminary
Notification proposing to acquire land to an extent of
1,334 Acres 12 Guntas situated in 08 Villages
including the land in Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli
Village measuring 28 Guntas under Section 17 of
2
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 .
Thereafter, the second respondent prepared a

1
'the BDA', for short
2
the BDA Act, 1976

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

Scheme under Section 18 of the BDA Act, 1976 and
sent the same to the first respondent - Government
nd
for its approval for formation of R.M.V 2 Stage
Layout, which the first respondent - Government
approved under Section 18 of the BDA Act, 1976.
Thereafter, a Final Notification came to be issued on
02.08.1978 by the first respondent - Government for
acquiring the aforesaid lands for formation of the
said layout.
3.3) It is contended that, one Sri.Shivanna and others
filed a Writ Petition No.29726/1981 calling in
question the Preliminary Notification dated
03.01.1977 and the Final Notification dated
02.08.1978. The said W.P.No.29726/1981 connected
with other matters came to be allowed on
27.07.1984, quashing both the Preliminary
Notification dated 03.01.1977 as well as the Final
Notification dated 02.08.1978. The Writ Court passed

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the order with the following observations, which
reads as under:
" ORDER
The preliminary notification issued by the
B.D.A. which is produced as Annexure-H in
W.P.29335 of 1981 only says that all persons
interested in the said lands are hereby warned not
to obstruct or interfere are hereby warned not to
obstruct or interfere with any Surveyors or other
persons employed upon the said land for the
purpose of the said acquisition. Any contracts for
the disposal of the said lands by sale, lease,
mortgage, assignment, exchange or otherwise or
any outlay or improvements made therein without
the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District, Bangalore after the date of
publication of the notification shall be disregarded
by the Officer assessing compensation for such
parts of the said lands as may be finally acquired.
The said notification does not provide for filling the
objections by the petitioners against the proposed
acquisition. Therefore, the said notification, on the
fact of it, is bad in law. Though these writ petitions
were filed in the year 1981, the B.D.A. has not
chosen to file any return controverting the
averments made by the petitioners in these writ
petitions. In the circumstances, I will have to
proceed on the basis of the averments made by the
petitioners that they were not served with the

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

notice as required under Section 17(5) of the
B.D.A. Act. Further, their assertion that the lands
had been excluded from the scheme of the
RAJAMAHAL VILAS SECOND STAGE LAYOUT',
Bangalore is also well founded in the absence of
any return by the B.D.A. However, the High Court
Government Pleader for the State Government
submitted that the petitioners have not
satisfactorily explained the delay in filing these writ
petitions. The Petitioner in paragraph - 11 of the
Writ Petition No.29335 has explained the delay in
approaching this Court and that apart in view of the
fact that the entire acquisition / proceedings were
wholly without jurisdiction since the B.D.A. had not
complied with the mandatory requirements of
Section 17(5) of the B.D.A. Act read with Sections
5 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the impugned
proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, these writ petitions are
allowed, the impugned notifications are quashed
reserving liberty for the authorities to initiate fresh
proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law.
6. Parties to bear their own costs.
7. The Government Pleader to file memo of
appearance within four weeks from this date."
3.4) It is the further case of the petitioner that he
recently came to know regarding the fact that his
vendor O.Sudarshan had also approached

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

unsuccessful by this Court in W.P.No.1538/1983
calling in question the Final Notification dated
02.08.1978, and also laid a challenge to the
rejection, in Writ Appeal which subsequently came to
be withdrawn. However, the fact remains that the
entire notifications Preliminary as well as Final were
quashed in W.P.No.29726/1981 was operating.
3.5) It is his further case that the second respondent -
BDA filed a Review Petition in W.P.No.29726/1981
and other connected matters in Civil Petition No.144
and 144A of 1989, which came to be disposed of on
03.03.1992, modifying the order passed by the Writ
Court in W.P.29726/1981 restricting it only to the
extent of the lands claimed by the petitioners
therein. The operating portion of the order in Civil
Petition Supra dated 03.03.1992 reads as under:
"19. In the result, I make the following order:
(i) Office is directed to incorporate one more number
as C.P.No.144-A of 1989 in the relevant register

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

and the petitioners shall furnish the deficit court
fee within two weeks:
(ii) The Review Petitions C.P.Nos.144 of 1989 and
144-A of 1989 are allowed:
(iii) The order made in the Writ Petitions is modified as
follows:-
A) W.P.No.29726/1981
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned final notification (Annexure-
A) is quashed, only in so far it relates to the
following extent of lands:
Village Sy. Extent
No
A-G
Mathikere 48/1 1-8
48/8 0-1
48/9 0-2
120/1 0-14
Chikkamaranahalli 1/144 7-32
Total 18-31

(iii) The B.D.A is at liberty to proceed from the
stage at which the illegality was committed;
(iv) The writ petitioner and all the persons who
are applicants in the interlocutory
applications shall file their objections to the
th
preliminary notification on or before 30
April 1992 before the Land Acquisition
Officer;
(v) Respondent No.4 or any other person
similarly situated shall also be at liberty to

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

present their case in writing before the Land
Acquisition Officer and/or the B.D.A. in
support of the acquisition of the lands in
question on or before 30-4-1992;
(vi) The competent authority shall proceed to
consider and hear objections, in accordance
th
with law after 30 April 1992 and a final
decision in the matter shall be taken in
accordance with law;
(vii) The B.D.A. shall not demolish any structure
put up on the land in question till the
acquisition is completed and thereafter shall
be at liberty to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law;
(viii) The writ petitioner or the applicants for
impleading, by themselves or through any
other person on their behalf, shall not put up
any construction or continue any
construction activity on the land concerned;
B) W.P.No.29355/1981:
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned final notification (Annexure-
A) is quashed, only in so far it relates to the
following extent of lands:
Village Sy. Extent
No
A-G
Dyavasandra 28 4-0
34/1 0-35
Total 4-35

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

(iii) The B.D.A is at liberty to proceed from the
stage at which the illegality was committed;
(iv) The writ petitioner and all the persons who
are applicants in the interlocutory
applications shall file their objections to the
th
preliminary notification on or before 30
April 1992 before the Land Acquisition
Officer;
(v) Respondent No.4 or any other person
similarly situated shall also be at liberty to
present their case in writing before the Land
Acquisition Officer and/or the B.D.A. in
support of the acquisition of the lands in
question on or before 30-4-1992;
(vi) The competent authority shall proceed to
consider and hear objections, in accordance
th
with law after 30 April 1992 and a final
decision in the matter shall be taken in
accordance with law;
(vii) The B.D.A. shall not demolish any structure
put up on the land in question till the
acquisition is completed and thereafter shall
be at liberty to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law;
(viii) The writ petitioner or the applicants for
impleading, by themselves or through any
other person on their behalf, shall not put up
any construction or continue any
construction activity on the land concerned;"

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.6) It is further case of the petitioner that the Final
nd
Notification acquiring the land to form R.M.V. 2
Stage Layout was also questioned by one
Dr.H.S.Hanumantha before this Court in Writ
Petition, which was allowed quashing the Final
Notification and reversed in Writ Appeal.
3.7) One 'Gokula Education Foundation' also questioned
the very same Notifications acquiring the land, which
came to be allowed by the Writ Court and confirmed
by the Division Bench in the case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA Vs. GOPAL EDUCATION
3
FOUNDATION . An unsuccessful petition was filed
before the Supreme Court calling in question the
order in favour of Gokula Education Foundation in
Civil Appeal No.1394-1411/2009 which was rested on
21.01.2015.

3
(2005) 6 KLJ 429

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.8) It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased
a Site bearing No.14, old Site No.9 in Sy.No.1/1 of
Geddalahalli Village from Sri.O.Sudarsan on
24.08.1989 (i.e., during the intervening period from
the date of order passed at Annexure-A and the
order passed at Annexure-B). Now the property has
come under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru
4
Mahanagara Palike . The BBMP has also transferred
Katha and issued Katha Certificate in favour of the
petitioner and he has been paying tax in respect of
the property to the BBMP. It is his case that
notwithstanding the dismissal of petition filed by his
vendor in W.P.No.1583/1983, the purchase made by
the petitioner is saved in view of quashing of the
Preliminary and Final Notifications in SHIVANNA 's
case in WP No.29726/1981 and connected matters,
wherein the entire Preliminary as well as Final
Notifications to the entire extent supra was quashed

4
the BBMP, for short

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

and restricted subsequently on 30.03.1992 to the
lands claimed by the petitioner in the aforesaid
petition and connected matters since the petitioner
has purchased the said property in the interregnum.
3.9) It is his further case that the second respondent has
issued No Objection Certificate dated 24.08.1992 in
favour of the petitioner for construction of a
residential building in the aforesaid property
(Annexure-D).
3.10) It is his further case that the father of third
respondent by name Sri.D.B.Chandregowda was a
former Member of Parliament, was allowed a site at
Matadahally under 'G' Category vide Lease cum Sale
Agreement dated 10.02.1982, followed by Possession
Certificate dated 12.02.1982 and thereafter, Absolute
Sale Deed executed in his favour on 16.10.1995
(Annexure-E, E1 & E2).

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.11) It is contended that the mother of the third
respondent by name Smt.B.S.Purna purchased a Flat
at Greenfield in the year 2003 (02.01.2003) and she
gifted the same in favour of the son of the third
respondent Sri.Dhanush Ram on 02.08.2010.
3.12) It is the further case of the petitioner that on
18.08.2009, the father of the third respondent
addressed a letter (Annexure-F) to the then Chief
Minister requesting him to allow a BDA stray site
under 'G' category in favour of his daughter in view
of her contribution to the Society, which reads as
under:
th
Ref: DBC:RO:245:2009-10 18 Aug 09'

To,
Hon'ble Chief Minister
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore.

Sir,

This is in reference to the request by my daughter
Mrs.Pallavi Ram, for the allotment of a BDA stray site in
Bangalore under 'G' category.

Please find enclosed the details of her contribution
to the society and in view of the same I strongly

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

recommend that her request for an allotment of a
suitable BDA stray site under 'G' category in one of the
developed layout in Bangalore be considered.

With warm regards.

Yours Sincerely

Sd/-
(D.B.Chandre Gowda)
3.13) It is the further case of the petitioner that although
the third respondent was not entitled to be allotted
with any site under 'G' Category, the then Chief
Minister directed the concerned to allot 'G' Category
site measuring 50 X 80 in favour of the third
respondent forthwith. In pursuant to such direction,
the first respondent directed the second respondent
vide Letter dated 09.12.2009 to allow a site under
Rule 5 of Bangalore Development Authority
5
(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 under 'G' Category
in favour of the third respondent considering the
same as a special case. The letter dated 09.12.2009
reads as under:

5
'Allotment of Sites Rules, 1984', for short

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

"¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE/396/¨ÉA¨sÀÆ¸Áé/2009. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
«PÁ¸À ¸ËzsÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:09/12/2009
EªÀjAzÀ:
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
£ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý E¯ÁSÉ,
«PÁ¸À ¸ËzsÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

EªÀjUÉ:
DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢PÁgÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃªÀÄw ¥À®è« gÁªÀiï, EªÀjUÉ "f" ¥ÀæªÀUÀðzÀ°è ©r
¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ¨ÉAC¥Á:PÁ«:©¤:307/09-10 ¢£ÁAPÀ:
15/09/2009.
*
ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ
PÀqÉUÉ UÀªÀÄ£À ¸É¼ÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVzÉ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ (¤ªÉÃ±À£À ºÀAaPÉ)
¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1984gÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 5 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-08-1997gÀ
¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaAiÀÄr, ²æÃ.r.©.ZÀAzÉæÃUËqÀ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ,
EªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ¥À®è«
gÁªÀiï, EªÀjUÉ «±ÉÃµÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý
X
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ "f" ¥ÀæªÀUÀðzÀ°è 50 80 Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ©r
¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ
w½¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É.

¤ªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ

Sd/-
(J¸ï.ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, (¥Àæ¨sÁgÀ)
£ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Ý E¯ÁSÉ."
(as provided at Annexure-G)

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

No.: NAI/396/BemBhuSwa/2009. Govt. of Karnataka,
Vikas Soudha, B'lore,
dated 09/12/2009
FROM:
Principal Secretary to Govt.
Urban Development Department,
Bangalore.

TO:
Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore.

Sir,
Subject: Regarding allotment of stray site in
'G' category to Mrs. Pallavi Ram.
Ref: Letter No.BemAaPa:KaVi:BiNi:307/09-10
dated 15/09/2009.

*
In connection with the above matter, drawing
attention to the reference letter of the Authority, I am
directed to inform you that under Rule 5 of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984
and the revised guidelines of the Government dated 06-
08-1997, since Sri.D.B.Chandregowda, Hon'ble Member of
Lok-Sabha, has not been allotted a site, I am hereby
directed to inform you that the Government has approved
the allotment of a stray site measuring 50X80 feet under
"G" Category to his daughter, Smt..Pallavi Ram,
considering it as a special case.

Yours Faithfully,

Sd/-
(S. Chandrappa)
Under Secretary to Government, (In-charge)
Urban Development Department.

(English Translation)

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.14) It is his further case that the second respondent in
pursuance of the letter dated 09.12.2009 allotted an
illusory site bearing No.253A in favour of the third
respondent, which is portrayed as being part of Site
No.14, old Site No.9 in Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli
Village i.e., property belonged to the petitioner,
under allotment letter dated 07.06.2010 at
Annexure-H.
3.15) It is further case of the petitioner that as on the

date of impugned allotment letter, there was no such
Site bearing No.253A in the original layout plan of
the property belonging to the petitioner as approved
by the first respondent - Government. The said site
was created by an order of the Commissioner of the
second respondent in Site No.14, old Site No.9 in
Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village on 12.10.2010 as
the same is reflected in Layout Plan dated
29.12.2012 to the petition (Annexure-J). This
according to the petitioner clearly shows that the site

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

No.253A was an illusory site which was allotted much
earlier to creation of the same itself in the layout on
12.10.2010, whereas the allotment letter is dated
07.06.2010. This clearly indicates the collusion of the
respondents.
3.16) A Writ Petition came to be filed by one Sri.Srinath
Hegde and others in W.P.No.16074-100/2010
seeking for a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings pursuant to the Preliminary and Final
Notifications dated 03.01.1977 and 02.08.1978 has
lapsed, in the wake of demolition proceedings
initiated by the second respondent. The Writ Court
after examining the issue and also examining the
implementation of the Scheme, while deliberating on
allotment of site to the third respondent under the
impugned Allotment Letter dated 07.06.2010,
specifically observed that the second respondent in
the guise of implementation of Scheme could not
have demolished the structures, threw the occupants

- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

from the lands and allot Site No.253A in favour of
the third respondent under 'G' Category and also
issued various directions vide order dated
02.09.2011, declaring that the entire Scheme has
lapsed and the second respondent was restrained
from taking further coercive action in the name of
implementation of the Scheme. A Writ Appeal was
filed by the second respondent calling in question the
order dated 02.09.2011 which is pending
consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, wherein an order of status quo came to be
passed in respect of the lands in dispute therein.
3.17) It is pertinent to note that the petitioner also filed a
Writ Petition in No.16738/2010 against the second
respondent seeking following reliefs:
"i) Issue a Writ of certiorari, such other order or
direction as this Court deems fit quashing the
preliminary notification dated 3.1.1977
No.A3.PR511/SLAO/76-77 at Annexure-K passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Development Authority, and final notification

- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

No.HUD 39 MNJ 78 dated 2.8.1978 passed by
Commissioner and Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development, at Annexure-D
and the award dated 4.10.1988 passed by
Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
Development Authority, at Annexure-M and declare
that the development scheme of Gokul II Stage
Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Layout in Survey No.1/1
Geddalahalli, under the notifications at Annexure-K
& L has lapsed and has become void in terms of
Section 27 of the Bangalore Development act,
1976;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or direction or an order
directing the respondent to act in accordance with
law and not to take law into its own hands and not
to dispossess the petitioner from the Schedule
property without due process of law; and
(iii) to grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case
including allowing this Writ with exemplary costs in
the interests of justice."
The Writ Court vide order dated 01.06.2010 issued notice
to the respondent and directed both the parties to
maintain status quo in respect of the property in question,
which was shown as schedule property in the interim
prayer of the Writ Petition.

- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.18) The petitioner further contended that he had issued
legal notice through his advocate to the second
respondent on 21.03.2020 (Annexure-K) calling upon
them to cancel the impugned Allotment Letter dated
07.06.2010, registered Lease-cum-Sale agreement
dated 15.10.2010 and Possession Letter dated
18.10.2010.
6
3.19) A Public Interest Litigation came to be filed in
W.P.No.23475/2010 and connected matters, wherein
this Court passed the following order, with several
directions:
i) "It is declared that the sites allotted to the
respondents/allottees pursuant to the directions
issued by the State Government under G-
Category is held to be illegal, arbitrary and
violative of Art.14 of the Constitution holding that
issuing direction by the Government exercising
powers under Sec.65 of BDA Act and to allot G-
category sites
ii) A direction is issued to the Government to
constitute a committee of three members out of

6
PIL, for short

- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

two shall be retired Hon’ble Judges of this court
and one shall be from the cadre of retired Chief
Secretary of the State of Karnataka.
iii) Government and BDA shall provide all
infrastructure to the committee;
iv) Government and BDA are directed to place all the
applications submitted by each of the
respondents/allottees;
v) Committee shall scrutinize each and every
application filed by the respective allottees in order
to find out whether such allottees were eligible for
allotment of sites under BDA Act and Rules
considering them as general merit applicants;
vi) If the committee is of the opinion that allottees
who satisfy the eligibility criteria of the sites to be
allotted by the BDA under general allotment rules,
such allotments are saved;
vii) If the committee is of the opinion that any allottee
was ineligible for allotment and if such allottee has
constructed the building or sold the property to a
third party under registered document, in such
circumstances the committee shall recommend to
the BDA and to the Government to recover double
the value of the amount fixed as per the guide-line
value for the purpose of registration of such site in
that particular layout as on the date of allotment
excluding the sital value deposited by the
allottees. If the allottees were not eligible and if no
construction is made by such allottees, Committee
shall recommend for resuming the sites. Based on

- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the recommendation of the Committee BDA shall
pass appropriate order in each and every case and
if the allotment made to the allottees are saved
subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition,
BDA shall impose the condition on the allottees or
subsequent purchasers not to alienate the
property/sites for a period of 10 years from the
date of respective allotment.
viii) Committee is requested to examine all the
applications and to make its recommendation
within a period of three months from the date of
providing all the infrastructure and documents by
the BDA and the Government;
ix) Till committee submits its report and cases are
considered by the BDA thereafter no further
construction shall be undertaken either by the
allottees or by the purchasers;
x) Government shall not allot any sites under G-
category and liberty is reserved to the Government
to frame appropriate Rules in accordance with law.
xi) Two weeks time is granted to the Government to
constitute a committee from the date of receipt of
this order."
3.20) In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court
in the above PIL, a Three Member Committee came
to be constituted, among which two were retired

- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

Hon'ble Judges of this Court and one from the cadre
of retired Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka.
3.21) It is the further case of the petitioner that the third
respondent appeared before the Committee and filed
a false affidavit stating that she was not allotted any
site by any of the authority in Bengaluru or anywhere
in the State and she was not possessing any
property, accordingly sought to recommend the BDA
to confirm the allotment of site allotted to her and
fulfil all other formalities pending, if any since she
comes within the eligibility criteria in terms of the
directions issued by this Court in
W.P.No.23475/2010.
3.22) The committee after considering the affidavit,

though records that the allottee is daughter of
politician and politician's kith and kin have sufficient
influence with regard to allotment of site under "G"
Category and present allottee has got one and the

- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

same is primarily because of the relationship stated
supra and she was allotted a site under "G" Category
by the BDA. However, considering the affidavit which
was not opposed by the BDA, recommended the BDA
to confirm the allotment of site allotted to the third
respondent as she has fulfilled the eligibility criteria
for allotment of site under the general category as
per Allotment of Site Rules, 1984 and fulfil other
formalities pending if any and effectuate the
allotment.
3.23) In pursuance of the impugned order by the
Committee, the second respondent executed
absolute Sale Deed in favour of the third respondent
on 23.02.2022 (Annexure-M).
3.24) It is further case of the petitioner that the third
respondent who appeared before the Committee
suppressed material facts before the Committee and
by filing a false affidavit before the Committee

- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

playing fraud and misleading the Committee, got the
order.
3.25) The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.3813/2022
seeking for declaration and injunction against the
second and third respondent, with following prayer:
"a) DECLARE that the Plaintiff herein is the absolute
owner of Suit Schedule Property and
b) PASS A JUDGMENT AND DECREE DECLARING that
the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement/Sale Deed dated
15/10/2010 executed by the 1st Defendant in
favour of the 2nd Defendant, bearing registered
document No.BDA-1-01647-2010-11, stored in
C.D.No. BDAD159 registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar, BDA, Bangalore is not binding on this
Plaintiff; CONSEQUENTLY CANCEL the Lease-cum-
Sale Deed dated 15/10/2010 executed by the 1st
Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant bearing
registered document No.BDA-1-01647-2010-11,
stored in C.D.No. BDAD159 registered in the office
of Sub-Registrar, BDA, Bangalore AND DIRECT the
concerned registering authority to note the factum
of cancellation of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement
dated 15/10/2010;
c) DIRECT the 2nd Defendant to produce the original
Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 15/10/2010
executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd
Defendant, bearing registered document No.BDA-

- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

1-01647-2010-11, stored in C.D.No. BDAD159
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, BDA,
Bangalore for the purpose of cancellation of
aforesaid instrument;
d) GRANT PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the
Defendants herein, their servants, agents,
henchmen, administrators, legal representatives,
assignees or anybody claiming under them from
interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property by Plaintiff;
AND
e) PASS any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the above
case including the cost of this suit, in the interest
of justice and equity.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of property bearing
Site No. 14 (Old No.9), carved out of Sy. No. 1/2,
Old Village Panchayat Khatha No. 465, present 7,
measuring East to West 80 feet and North to South
50 feet admeasuring 4000 sq.ft., formed in
Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village, Bangalore North
Taluk, Bangalore, presently situated at 6th Cross,
Bande Layout, Geddalahalli Village, Bangalore
along with a 1 square house constructed thereon
and bounded on:
East by : Property Nos. 7 and 8
West by : 40ft. B.D.A Road
North by : Property No.13
South by : Property No.15"

- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

3.26) An application was filed seeking a temporary
injunction in I.A.No.1. The third respondent appeared
and filed her objections to the said application. The
Trial Court after considering the application and the
objections, disposed of the I.A on 21.07.2022 with
the following order:
" ORDER
I.A No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is hereby allowed.
The defendant No.2 and any other persons
are restraining from interfering and dispossessing
the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
Further, both plaintiff and defendant No.2 are
directed to maintain status quo in the suit property
till disposal of the Writ Appeal pending before
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka."
3.27) The order passed on I.A.No.1 was the subject
matter before this Court in MFA No.5803/2022. This
court at the time of issuance of notice, after
considering the case advanced by both the parties,
directed both the parties i.e., the petitioner and
respondent No.2 herein who are the plaintiff and

- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

defendant No.2 before the Trial Court to maintain
status quo in respect of the property and also
directed both the parties not to proceed with any
further construction in the scheduled property till the
next date of hearing on 21.09.2022. Subsequently,
after hearing the rival contentions, this Court decided
and disposed of the appeal on 27.10.2022 directing
the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the
suit and directed them to co-operate with the Trial
Court for speed disposal of the suit in
O.S.No.3813/2022 pending before the Civil Court.
3.28) The petitioner further contends that he has made an
application before the concerned authority under the
7
Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking records with
respect to formation/ creation of Site No.253 and
also issuance of modified plan. The concerned two
Sections of the BDA, which were concerned with
maintaining records pertaining to creation of the site,

7
'the RTI Act', for short

- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

issued two Endorsements respectively dated
29.09.2022 and 14.10.2022. As per the endorsement
dated 29.09.2022, the Urban Project Division
informed that, the records with reference to
formation of Site No.253A, 253B and 253C were not
found in their division and the same may be sought
at Engineering Section of the Authority. However, in
the endorsement issued by the Engineering Section
dated 14.10.2022, it is clearly stated that no records
pertaining to creation of Sites No.253A, 253B and
253C were available in the office (Annexure-T & T1).
3.29) It is the further case of the petitioner that the BDA
has allotted a 'G' Category site in favour of the third
respondent exceeding its jurisdiction and power
under Rule 5 of Allotment of Site Rules, 1984 and the
same is opposed to Rule 5 and Rule 10(3) of
Allotment of Site Rules, 1984, as Rule 5 provides
that stray sites can be allotted in favour of a person
if he or any member of his family does not own a site

- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

or a house in Bengaluru Metropolitan Area. Further,
the documents produced along with the Writ Petition
clearly indicates that father of the third respondent
who was Ex-MP was allotted a 'G' Category site by
the very same BDA itself in the year 1982 by way of
Lease-cum-Sale agreement and subsequently, an
Absolute Sale Deed came to be executed in the year
1995. The mother of the third respondent purchased
a Flat within the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area in the
year 2003 and gifted the same in favour of son of the
third respondent. The third respondent suppressing
all these material facts, filed false affidavit before the
Committee and made the Committee to pass an
order in her favour by playing fraud and misleading
the Committee.
3.30) The petitioner further contended that even a perusal
of Allotment Order and creation of site makes it clear
that there is collusion between the respondents. The
allotment order was passed on 07.06.2010, whereas

- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the Site No.253A was created and incorporated in
the plan by the order of the Commissioner on
12.10.2010. This conspicuously postulates that Site
No.253A was an illusory site which was allotted on
07.06.2010, notwithstanding the order of status quo
passed in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
calling in question the Notifications in respect of his
property as per the schedule in the petition stated
supra and the interim order passed thereon on
01.06.2010 to maintain status quo . Accordingly, the
petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
order of Allotment, issuance of Possession Certificate,
Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement, the order of
recommendation and execution of Sale Deed.
4. In response to the notice, both respondent No.2
- BDA and contesting respondent No.3 - Allottee appeared
before the Court and filed their separate statement of
objections.

- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

5. Respondent No.2 - BDA has filed statement of
objection contending that the Writ Petition filed calling in
question the impugned Allotment Letter and Sale Deed is
not maintainable as the same is hit by delay and laches,
the reason being the allotment letter was issued on
07.06.2010 and the petition is filed on 29.10.2022 i.e.,
after a lapse of 12½ years and the order impugned passed
by the fourth respondent was dated 06.04.2021 and the
Writ Petition is filed after lapse of more than 1½ year, as
such the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the
aforesaid ground of delay and laches.
5.1 Further, it was contented by the BDA that Site
No.253A was carved out in the Sy.No.1/2 of
Geddalahalli Village measuring 18 Guntas including 1
Gunta of Kharab land acquired along with certain
other lands for the public purpose for formation of
residential area called Rajmahal Vilas II Stage Layout
under Preliminary Notification and Final Notification
dated 23.01.1977 as well as 02.08.1978 both

- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

gazetted on 24.02.1977 and 31.08.1978. It is
contended that one Annayyappa was the notified
Khathedar of the said land and award was passed on
10.06.1981 and the same was approved on
10.02.1982 and the same was deposited in the Civil
Court on 15.09.1983, possession of the above land
was taken on 04.03.1982 and handed over to the
Engineering Section on 15.04.1982.
5.2 It was contended by the BDA that Site No.253A

measuring 50X80 is one of the sites formed in the
above acquired land in Sy.No.1/2 of Geddalahalli
Village. The State Government vide order dated
09.02.2009, directed the BDA to allot a site
measuring 50X80 to the third respondent under 'G'
Category according approval to the same,
considering the same as a special case. Accordingly,
on 07.06.2010 Allotment letter was issued in favour
of the third respondent and thereafter she has
deposited the site value on 09.06.2010. A lease cum

- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

sale agreement was executed in her favour in respect
of Site No.253A on 15.10.2010 and the same was
issued on 15.10.2010 and the Possession Certificate
in respect of the above site was issued on
18.10.2010.
5.3 The BDA further submitted that in view of the order
passed by this Court in PIL, in W.P.No.23475/2010, a
three member Committee was constituted, the
Committee upon deliberation and enquiry on the
document produced by the third respondent,
recommended the BDA to confirm the allotment of
the above site to the third respondent and fulfil other
formalities. Accordingly, an absolute Sale Deed came
to be executed in favour of the third respondent on
23.02.2022 which was registered on 24.02.2022.
5.4 The BDA further submits that the petitioner claims to
have purchased Revenue Site No.14 with its old No.9
from one Sri.O.Sudarsan on 20.04.1989 which was

- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

carved out of the land in Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli
Village. The land in Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village
was also acquired by the BDA under the aforesaid
Notifications and after issuance of Final Notification,
award was passed, the amount was deposited before
the Civil Court, the possession was taken and handed
over to the Engineering Section, as such the property
vested with the Government, way back in the year
1982 itself. The Sale Deed dated 20.04.1989 in
favour of the petitioner was after vesting of the land
with the BDA, as such the Sale Deed will not confirm
any right, title to the petitioner as the Sale Deed
itself is void and non-est .
5.5 Further it is submitted by the second respondent -

BDA that the site claimed by the petitioner was
formed/carved out of Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli
Village and the site allotted in favour of the third
respondent i.e., Site.No.253A was carved out in
Sy.No.1/2 of Geddalahalli Village. Therefore, the

- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

petitioner has no locus-standi to seek a challenge to
the allotment made in favour of the third respondent.
5.6 Further, the BDA submitted that the order passed in
W.P.No.29726/1981 was restricted only in respect of
lands of the petitioners therein who filed the petition
i.e., in respect of Sy.No.1/1 of Chikkamarenahalli
Village and not either in Sy.No.1/1 or Sy.No.1/2 of
Geddalahalli Village, out of which the above site
No.253/A was carved out.
5.7 Further it was submitted that the vendor of the
petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No.1538/1983 challenging the acquisition of the
land in Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village which has
resulted in a failure and the appeal filed later on was
also came to be withdrawn by the said vendor. As
such, the acquisition proceedings in respect of
Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village have attained
finality. In that view of the matter, the petitioner

- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

being the subsequent purchaser cannot maintain the
Writ Petition as the claim of title itself is null and void
and do not confer any right, title and interest on the
petitioner.
5.8 Further it was contented by the BDA that the
documents obtained in furtherance of the Sale Deed
of the year 1989 will not confer any right to the
petitioner over the acquired land. As such, the
contention that the sale deed is saved by the
judgment of this Court in SHIVANNA 's case supra
has nothing to do with allotment of Site No.253A in
favour of the third respondent as the petitioner has
no right over the above site.
5.9 It is further contented by the second respondent -

BDA that the NOC dated 24.08.1992 issued in favour
of the petitioner for construction of residential
building in Site No.14 of Geddalahalli Village is
denied as the Joint Director of Town Planning who

- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

has issued the same is not the acquiring Authority
and the competent authority over the acquired land
of the BDA.
5.10 Further, it was again contented that, the land Site

No.253A was part of Sy.No.1/2 of Geddalahalli
Village and not part of Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli
Village. It was further contended that even otherwise
also the petitioner has no right over the land in
Sy.No.1/1 or 1/2 of Geddalahalli Village. Therefore
he has no locus-standi to seek a challenge to the
allotment of Site No.253A in favour of the third
respondent. With this, the BDA sought to dismiss the
Writ Petition.
6. Contesting respondent/ respondent No.3, has

contended more or less as contended by the BDA.
6.1 The third respondent contended that she comes
within the eligibility criteria as she has rendered
service to the public/ community in the field of

- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

mathematics by establishing the Abacus learning of
higher arithmetic School of Karnataka, which is
popularly known as 'Aloha School of Karnataka'. The
students of Aloha School of Karnataka have set
National record in the 'Limca book of Records' for
demonstrating the fastest multiplication and division.
Based upon the service rendered by the third
respondent in the field of mathematics, the 'G'
Category site was allotted to her and the same is
confirmed by the fourth respondent by the impugned
order in furtherance of direction issued by this Court
in Public Interest Litigation directing the second
respondent - BDA to execute the Sale Deed and
complete all formalities.
6.2 It was further contented by contestant respondent
No.3 that the petitioner has no locus standi to
challenge the allotment of Site No.253A which was
carved out in Sy.No.1/2 as his claim was in respect
of Site No.14, old Site No.9 carved out of Sy.No.1/1.

- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

Even otherwise, his vendor who earlier filed Writ
Petition in the year 1983 calling in question the
acquisition proceedings tasted failure and withdrawn
the Writ Appeal. As such, the acquisition proceedings
in respect of Sy.No.1/1 has attained finality. In these
circumstances, the petitioner cannot maintain the
Writ Petition.
6.3 The third respondent further contended that she has
fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as mentioned in Rule
5(6)(iii) of Allotment of Site Rules 1984. The said
Rule prescribes that 'G' Category sites shall be
allotted only if he or any member of his family does
not own a site or a house in the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area and has not been allotted a site by
the BDA or any other authority within the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area. In other words, the said Rule
prescribes that any dependent of the family should
not own a site or a house in Bangalore Metropolitan
area and has not been allotted a site or a house by

- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the BDA. In the present case, the family members of
the third respondent i.e., the husband or dependent
children of the third respondent do not own a site or
house in Bangalore Metropolitan Area and has not
been allotted a site or a house by the BDA or any
other authority. As such the contention of the
petitioner that the site was allotted in favour of the
third respondent is in violation of Rule 5(6)(iii) is
untenable and has no legs to stand, as such the
petition required to be dismissed.
6.4 The third respondent further contented that a
Criminal case was filed by her with the Sanjaynagar
Police Station, wherein notice was issued calling the
BDA to submit the records under Section 91 of
Cr.P.C, with reference to the property of the third
respondent bearing Site No.253A. Pursuant thereto,
the BDA conducted a Survey and submitted the
Survey Report to the Police stating that Site No.253A
is found in Sy.No.1/2, as such the contention of the

- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

petitioner that the site is formed in Sy.No.1/1 is
unsustainable in the eyes of law, as such the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.5 The third respondent specifically urges on the locus

standi of the petitioner to seek a challenge to the
allotment of site No.253A in Sy.No.1/2. Accordingly,
sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. All the concerned learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties are heard and perused the entire
materials placed before us i.e., the Writ Petition papers as
well as the statement of objections filed by the second
respondent - BDA and contesting respondent No.3.
8. Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Sri.Satish.K, learned counsel for the petitioner
with all vehemence submits that the site bearing No.253A
was formed and created as an illusory site, now
overlapping on the part of the site purchased by the
petitioner in the year 1989.

- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

9. He further asserts that the BDA has not
adhered to Rule 5 and 10 of Allotment of Site Rules, 1984
while allotting Site No.253A in favour of the third
respondent. Even otherwise the third respondent does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria as carved out for allotment of 'G'
Category site in favour of a person. The Rule prescribes
that for allotment of G-category sites, a person must be in
public life. That means, "the persons who are serving the
public or available to the public for service as a whole or
involved in the affair of the community in different
capacity". The third respondent does not fit in any of the
ingredients stated in the said Rule stated above. The only
reason for allotment of Site No.253A in favour of the third
respondent is she being the daughter of an Ex-MP. The
letter requesting allotment of site in favour of the third
respondent by her father at Annexure-F indicates the
same, stating that she has contributed to the Society and
in view of the same, he strongly recommends that her
request for an allotment of suitable BDA site under 'G'

- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

Category in one of the developed areas be considered. The
same was countersigned and endorsed by the then Chief
Minister to consider the request forthwith for allotment of
the site measuring 50 X 80. In pursuance of the same,
Annexure-G came to be passed on 09.12.2009 by the
Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department
stating that in terms of the revised guidelines dated
06.08.1997, since the father of the third respondent, the
then Lok-Sabha member has not been allotted a site, his
daughter - the third respondent be considered for
allotment of a site in 'G' Category measuring 50 X 80,
considering the case as a special case and the same is
approved by the Government. This clearly shows that the
State has given largesse as per the sweet will and whims
of the political entities and succumbed to the political
pressure, though the person who claimed the site is not
eligible within the parameters set out in the particular Rule
i.e., Rule 5.

- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

10. He further submits that the third respondent
appeared before the Committee and filed false affidavit
stating that none of her family members have been
allotted any site which is false per se , the reason being her
father was allotted a site way back in the year 1982 by the
BDA itself by means of Lease-cum-Sale agreement and
executed an absolute sale deed in the year 1995, bearing
site No.3 in extension of Matadahalli. Further, the mother
of the third respondent purchased the house/apartment in
Greenfield way back in the year 2003 and gifted the same
in the year 2010 in favour of son of the third respondent.
This fact has been suppressed by the third respondent in
her affidavit before the Committee. In these
circumstances, she has obtained the order by suppressing
material facts, playing fraud & misleading the Committee.
This amounts to fraud and in view of settled position of
law, fraud and justice does not dwell together. As such the
third respondent is not entitled for any site and the

- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

allotment order as well as the order passed confirming the
same to execute the Sale Deed requires to be quashed.
11. He further submits taking us through the
petition papers that the allotment letter was issued on
07.06.2010. He emphasizes upon the interim order passed
by this court on 01.06.2010 in the Writ Petition filed by
the petitioner, calling the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the site number stated in the schedule to the
Writ Petition bearing No.16738/2020. The Writ Court upon
considering the materials placed before it, passed an order
directing both the parties i.e., the petitioner and the
second respondent - 2 BDA to maintain status quo in
respect of the property in question. The allotment order
passed is directly in contravention of the order passed by
the Writ Court since the site allotted is overlapping on the
site which was purchased by the petitioner way back in the
year 1989.

- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

12. So far as contention of the second and third
respondents regarding locus standi and Sale Deed of the
petitioner as null and void, learned Senior counsel taking
us through the Judgment of the Writ Court in
W.P.No.2976/1981 connected with W.P.No.29355/1981
dated 27.07.1984 as well as the Civil Petition i.e., Review
Petition order in Civil Petition No.144 & 144A/1989 dated
27.07.1984, submits that the entire notification in respect
of an area of 1,334 Acres 12 Guntas of land situated in 8
villages had been quashed, which was subsequently got
corrected and restricted only with respect of the lands
claimed by the petitioners therein in the year 1992. The
sale deed of the petitioner was in the interregnum,
therefore saved.
13. He further submits that a perusal of Allotment
Letter clearly shows that it was issued on 07.06.2010
allotting illusory Site No.253A in favour of the third
respondent. Learned Senior counsel emphasis on the word
'Illusory Site' to contend that there was no such site

- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

formed or shown or indicated in the original plan. The said
site was created or formed on the layout by the order of
Commissioner of BDA on 12.10.2010, which is clearly
reflected in the Layout Plan produced at Annexure-J. A
note was found place in the said Layout Plan creating Site
No.253/A, 253/B and 253/C stating that "these sites are
incorporated as per order of the Commissioner dated
12.10.2010 in the File No.810/2010-11". This clearly
shows there was no such site available on the land. An
illusory site was created and was allotted by means of the
Allotment Letter. This clearly shows that the respondents
are in collusion in creating the illusory site and now
coming on the site purchased by the petitioner.
(emphasis by us)
14. Learned Senior counsel further contended that
the Committee constituted in furtherance of the order
passed by this Court in the PIL, has though observed in
Paragraph No.6 as under:

- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

"6. Allottee is a House Wife. She is a Social
Worker by profession. Allottee is the daughter of a
Politician. Politicians kith and kin have sufficient influence
with regard allotment of site under "G" category and the
present allottee got one. It is primarily because of this
relationship that she was allotted a site under "G"
category by the Bangalore Development Authority"
However without deliberating anything on that, only on the
basis of the affidavit filed by the third respondent, which
was not opposed by the BDA (though very well aware of
the fact that her father has already been allotted a site by
the BDA itself), the Committee passed the order
recommending the BDA to confirm the allotment of site.
This is nothing but a fraud on the Court as well as the
Committee by means of misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts, as such, the allotment of
site which is the creature of fraud requires to be quashed.
15. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the
State and its instrumentalities are very keen in showing
unnecessary favouritism and nepotism in favour of the

- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

third respondent for the only reason that she is the
daughter of the then sitting MP.
16. So far as contention of respondents 2 and 3
regarding locus standi, learned Senior counsel submits
that the petitioner has filed a suit seeking a declaration
that he be declared as owner of the property in
O.S.No.3813/2022 and also a declaration against the
Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, Sale Deed dated 15.10.2010
and sought cancellation of the same stating that the same
is now shown to be on the land i.e., site purchased by the
petitioner which is clearly stated in the schedule to the
aforesaid suit.
17. He further submits that though the third
respondent filed objections to the I.A seeking temporary
injunction against the interference in the enjoyment of the
site by the petitioner, the Civil Court upon consideration of
the entire material placed before it, allowed I.A.No.1 filed
seeking temporary injunction which we have already

- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

extracted herein above, directing the parties to maintain
status quo and restraining defendant No.2 and any other
persons from interfering and dispossessing the
petitioner/plaintiff from the schedule property. The said
order was the subject matter before this Court in MFA
No.5803/2022, wherein, at the first hearing, status quo
order come to be issued. Subsequently, the appeal was
disposed of continuing the interim order till the disposal of
the suit and directed both the parties to co-operate for the
speedy disposal of the suit stated supra. In these
circumstances, the petitioner is having all rights and locus
to maintain the petition since illusory site bearing No.253A
which is shown in the modified Layout plan is coming/
overlapping on the site purchased by the petitioner in the
year 1989.
18. He further submits taking us through the
endorsement issued by the two sections of the BDA with
whom the petitioner had sought certain records by means
of an application filed under the Right to Information Act,

- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

wherein both the Sections of the BDA have stated that
such records were not available in their office. This shows
that except the endorsement in the modified plan and
creation of the site, no proceedings were held, the basis
on which the said sites were created. This clearly shows
that the sites created are illusory sites and now upon such
allotment the third respondent and the BDA are coming
over the site of the petitioner.
19. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the

unnecessary largesse favoured by the State in favour of
the third respondent is uncalled for and unsustainable in
law. He submits that any such largesse to be confirmed by
the State on any person must be founded on sound,
transparent, discriminable and well-defined policy, which
shall be made known to the public. However in the case on
hand, there is nothing such kind of record forthcoming in
the office of the BDA. This clearly shows that the BDA has
succumbed to the political pressure as well as the pressure
of the State instrumentalities and acted according to the

- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

sweet will and whims of the political entities by means of
allotting the site under 'G' Category in favour of the third
respondent though she is not entitled and eligible within
the meaning of Rule 5 and 10 of Allotment of Site Rules,
1984. To support his arguments, learned Senior Counsel
relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.9616/2020 and stresses more on Paragraph
No.25 & 26 which reads as under:
"25. However, in the present case favoritism has
been done by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3
without following the prescribed procedure. Therefore,
the initial allotment as well as the sale deed dated
28.07.2020 deserves to be set aside.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Saroj Screens Private Limited v. Ghanshyam and others
reported in (2012) 11 SCC 434 in paragraphs-38 and 39
is held as under:
"38. The question whether the State and/or its
agency/instrumentality can transfer the public property
or interest in public property in favour of a private
person by negotiations or in a like manner has been
considered and answered in negative in several cases. In
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P.
[(2011) 5 SCC 29 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] this Court
was called upon to examine whether the Government of

- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

Madhya Pradesh could have allotted 20 acres land to Shri
Kushabhau Thakre Memorial Trust under the M.P. Nagar
Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 read with the M.P.
Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho,
Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam,
1975. After noticing the provision of the Act and the
Rules, as also those contained in the M.P. Revenue Book
Circular and the judgments of this Court in S.G.
Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427],
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489], Erusian
Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. [(1975) 1
SCC 70], Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K
[(1980) 4 SCC 1], Common Cause v. Union of India
[(1996) 6 SCC 530], Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.
[(1991) 1 SCC 212 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 742] , LIC v.
Consumer Education & Research Centre [(1995) 5 SCC
482] and New India Public School v. HUDA [(1996) 5
SCC 510] , the Court culled out the following
propositions: (Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta case [(2011) 5
SCC 29 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] , SCC p. 60, paras 65-
66)
“65. What needs to be emphasised is that
the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities
cannot give largesse to any person according to
the sweet will and whims of the political entities
and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision
of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities
to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded
on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-
defined policy, which shall be made known to the
public by publication in the Official Gazette and
other recognised modes of publicity and such

- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

policy must be implemented/executed by adopting
a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary method
irrespective of the class or category of persons
proposed to be benefited by the policy. The
distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant
of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its
agencies/instrumentalities should always be done
in a fair and equitable manner and the element of
favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the
exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the
particular functionary or officer of the State.
66. We may add that there cannot be any
policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land
on the basis of applications made by individuals,
bodies, organisations or institutions dehors an
invitation or advertisement by the State or its
agency/instrumentality. By entertaining
applications made by individuals, organisations or
institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any
other type of largesse the State cannot exclude
other eligible persons from lodging competing
claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form
of largesse by the State or its
agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise
as a private venture is liable to be treated as
arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism
and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality
clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
39. The factual matrix of the instant case shows
that before granting 30 years' lease of the plot in favour
of the appellant, the Corporation neither issued any
advertisement nor followed any procedure consistent
with the doctrine of equality so as to enable the
members of the public to participate in the process of
alienation of public property. Therefore, the conclusion
reached by the High Court, though for different reasons,
that the resolution dated 28-8-1991 and the sanction
accorded by the State Government vide Letter dated 12-

- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

6-2000 are legally unsustainable does not call for
interference by this Court."
With this, learned Senior counsel sought to allow the Writ
Petition and quash the impugned allotment letter, order
for confirmation and the absolute sale deed executed in
furtherance thereof.
20. In contrast, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent - BDA with all
vehemence submits that the BDA has allotted the site as
per the direction of the State Government vide
Annexure-G. The BDA being the organ of the State
required to comply with the directions of the State
Government, in terms of an intimation from the Office of
Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department on
09.12.2009 according approval for allotment of 'G'
Category site measuring 50X80 in favour of the third
respondent, and in compliance with the order of the State
Instrumentality, allotted the site. As such there is no

- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

illegality in allotment of site in favour of the third
respondent.
21. He has further submitted that the petitioner has
no locus standi to challenge the order of allotment, as his
vendor lost his case in the year 1987 in Writ Petition filed
in the year 1983 seeking quashing of the acquisition
proceedings in respect of Sy.No.1/1 of Geddalahalli Village
and the appeal filed by him comes to be withdrawn
subsequently and the acquisition proceedings had attained
finality and in view of passing of the award, depositing the
award amount and taking possession and handing over it
to the Engineering Section, the land stood vested with the
BDA and the vendor has no locus and right to convey the
said land in favour of the petitioner in 1989 since the
entire proceedings were completed in the year 1982 itself,
as there is no right conferred on the petitioner. Even
otherwise the land wherein Site No.253A was created was
carved out in Sy.No.1/2 and the site claimed by the
petitioner under the Sale Deed of 1989 i.e., Site No.14,

- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

old Site No.9 was carved out in Sy.No.1/1. In view of
completion of acquisition proceedings way back in the year
1982 and the unsuccessful attempt of petitioner's vendor
in the year 1987 itself in seeking quashing of the
acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No.1/1, the
petitioner cannot maintain the present Writ Petition.
Further it was contented that the petitioner has filed a suit
seeking for declaration which is pending for consideration
before the Civil Court challenging the very same allotment
and other orders questioned in the Writ Petition, as such
the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and sought to
dismiss the Writ Petition.
22. Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for
constesting respondent No.3 argued in toe with
Sri.K.Krishna, and submitted that the case of the third
respondent was considered as she comes within the four
of law as envisaged in Rule 5 for the purpose of allotment
of 'G' Category site. The third respondent was very much
known in the education field for her contribution as she

- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

has rendered her service to the Public/ Community in the
field of Mathematics by establishing Abacus learning of
higher arithmetic school of Karnataka, which is known as
'Aloha School of Karnataka'. The students of the Aloha
School of Karnataka have set record in 'Limca book of
Records' for demonstrating the fastest multiplication and
division. It is for this service which comes within the
purview of the eligibility criteria under Rule 5, the third
respondent case was considered for allotment of 'G'
category site.
23. He further submits that the restriction provided
for allotment of Site in Rule 5 is that none of the family
members, own a site or house in the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area and has been allotted a site by the BDA
or any other authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan
Area, which should be considered with respect to the
family of the third respondent i.e., her husband and
dependent children. In the present case, neither the
husband nor the dependent children of the third

- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

respondent have any house or site or have any house
owned in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area by them or they
have been allotted any site by the BDA or other
authorities, as such the Committee constituted in
furtherance of order passed by this Court in the PIL after
verifying all the records and deliberating on the same,
recommended for confirmation of allotment of the site in
favour of the third respondent and for doing all necessary
further formalities. The BDA in furtherance of said order,
has executed Sale Deed in favour of the third respondent.
The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition belatedly that is
12½ years after the issuance of allotment letter and 1½
year after the order confirming the allotment of said
property, cannot maintain the Writ Petition as the same is
also hit by delay and laches. Besides, he has no locus
standi to lay a challenge to a site bearing No.253A in
Sy.No.1/2. As such the contention of the petitioner that
the site is formed in Sy.No.1/1 is untenable in the eyes of
law and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.

- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

24. In this writ petition, we are concerned only with
the legality of the allotment of the site and not with the
question of ownership/title of the petitioner. The title
dispute is already pending before the Civil Court and
involves disputed facts requiring trial. Therefore, the
present case is confined to examining whether the
allotment of the ‘G’ Category site in favour of the third
respondent is sustainable under Rules 5 and 10 of the
Allotment of Site Rules, 1984.
25. Before entering upon the facts of the case, it is
apt to extract certain provisions of the BDA Act, 1976 as
well as Allotment of Site Rules, 1984.
26. Section 12 of the BDA Act, 1976 prescribes for
appointment of Commissioner and Section 13 of BDA Act,
1976 states regarding powers and duties of the
Commissioner. For easy reference, we extract both
Sections 12 and 13, which reads as under:
"12. Appointment of Commissioner .- (1) The
State Government shall appoint an officer, not below the

- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

rank of Divisional Commissioner, to be the Commissioner
for the Authority.
(2) The Commissioner shall receive such monthly
salary and other allowances as the State Government
may, from time to time determine.
(3) The State Government may, from time to time,
grant leave of absence for such period 2[as it thinks fit]2
to the Commissioner. A copy of every order granting
such leave shall be communicated to the Chairman.

12A. Appointment of Secretary.- (1) The State
Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank
of a senior scale officer of the Karnataka Administrative
Service, to be the Secretary of the Authority.
(2) The Secretary shall receive such monthly
salary and other allowances as the State Government
may from time to time determine.

13. Powers and duties of the Commissioner .-
(1) The Commissioner shall be the Chief Executive and
Administrative Officer of the Authority.
(2) The Commissioner shall in addition to
performing such functions as are conferred on him by or
under this Act or under any law for the time being in
force,-
(a) carry into effect the resolutions of the
Authority ;
Provided that, if in the opinion of the
Commissioner any resolution of the Authority
contravenes any provision of this Act or any other law or
of any rule, notification, regulation or bye-law made or
issued under this Act or any other law, or of any order
passed by the Government or is prejudicial or
detrimental to the interest of the Authority, he shall,
within fifteen days of the passing of the resolution refer
the matter to the Government for orders and inform the
Authority at its next meeting, of the action taken by him
and until the orders of the Government on such
reference are received, the Commissioner shall not be
bound to give effect to the resolution;
(b) keep and conduct the Authority’s
correspondence;
(c) carry out and execute such schemes and works
as the State Government may direct and incur necessary
expenditure therefore;

- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

(d) be responsible for implementing the schemes
of the Authority;
(e) operate the accounts of the Authority and be
responsible for the maintenance of the accounts of the
authority;
(f) exercise supervision and control over the
accounts and proceedings of all officers and servants of
the Authority in matters of executive administration and
in the matters concerning the accounts and records of
the Authority and to the extent specified in sub-section
(1) of section 50 dispose of all questions relating to the
service of such officers and servants and their pay,
privileges and allowances; and
(g) furnish to the Government a copy of the
minutes of the Authority’s proceedings and any return or
other information which the Government may, from time
to time, call for;
(h) authenticate by his signature all permissions,
orders, decisions, notices and other documents of the
Authority and the orders of the Chairman.
(3) The Commissioner shall have all the powers of
a major Head of the Department of the State
Government under the Karnataka State Civil Services
Rules for the time being in force as respects the officers
and servants of the Authority."
(emphasis supplied)
27. Rule 5 of Bangalore Development Authority
(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 prescribes for allotment of
stray sites including allotment of 'G' category site in
respect of persons in public life, which reads as under:
"Rule - 5. Allotment of stray sites - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
allotment of stray sites shall be in accordance with the
provisions hereinafter provided.

- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

(2) The authority shall at least once in a year
cause to be prepared a list of stray sites, giving details of
layouts and dimension of sites and offer any or all the
sites for allotment under this rule to persons eligible for
allotment.
(3) Due publicity shall be given in respect of
sites offered for allotment specifying their location,
number, last date for submission of application and such
other particulars as the Commissioner may consider
necessary, by affixing a notice on the notice board of the
office and website of the authority and any other office
as the Commissioner may decide and by publication in
not less than two daily newspapers published in City of
Bangalore in English and Kannada, having wide
circulation in the city.
(4) Sites shall be allotted among different
categories as follows:
Category Description Percentage
A Disposal by auction 30
B Persons who have
recognition in the field of
sports at International/
National level
10
15
C Persons who have won
special recognition in the
field of Art, Painting,
Sculpture, Music, Dance,
Drama, Films, Science,
Literature, Education,
Medicine, Press and
Electronic media and Public
Administration at the
National/ International
level and sitting or former
members of Higher
Judiciary.
D Ex-Military personnel or 05
military personnel

- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

05
E Freedom fighters who are
residents of Bangalore
Metropolitan Area for a
period of not less than ten
years
F Dependents of Karnataka
Government Servants who
died while on duty
05
G Persons in public life 30

Explanation.- For the purpose of Category "G",
"Persons in public life" means persons who are serving
the public or available to the people for service as a
whole and involved in the affairs of the Community in
different capacities and includes persons who are or were
elected or nominated to the Parliament or the State
Legislature.
(5) Allotment through auction under Category
'A' shall be made only to a person if:-
(i) he is not a minor, and
(ii) he is a citizen of India.

(6) Allotment to any person falling under
Categories 'B' to 'G' shall be made only if.-
(i) he is not a minor,
(ii) he is a domicile of Karnataka for not less
than fifteen years,
(iii) he or any member of his family does not
own a site or a house in the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area and has not been allotted a site
or house by the Bangalore Development Authority
or any other Authority within the Bangalore
Development Authority or any other Authority
within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, and

- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

(iv) he satisfies the Authority that he is in a
reasonable position to put up a building on the site
allotted, within a period of three years from the
date of handing over possession of the site:
Provided that requirement of fifteen years domicile
may be relaxed by the Authority.-
(i) in case of persons who are domiciled in the
State of Karnataka but are in the Armed Forces of the
Union and serving outside the State of Karnataka;
(ii) in the case of persons who are domiciled in the
State of Karnataka but have gone outside the State for
employment, business, studies or training and who bona
fide intend to reside in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area;
and
(iii) in the case of persons belonging to Categories
'B' and 'C' with the prior permission of the Government.
(7) Sites earmarked for disposal under Category
'A' shall be allotted by the Authority based on the result
of auction.
(8) Sites to persons falling under Categories 'B' to
'F' (both inclusive) shall be allotted by the Authority on
the recommendation of a committee constituted by it.
(9) In the case of persons falling under Category
'G', the Authority shall scrutinise all applications received
and submit them to the Government for approval and
after getting the approval allot the sites to such persons.
(10) Value of sites to be allotted to persons falling
under Categories 'B' to 'G' shall be fixed at ten per cent
above the current value of sites which are allotted under
Rule 11.

- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

(11) The provisions of Rules 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15
shall apply for allotment made under this rule in respect
of Categories 'B' to 'G".
28. Whereas, Rule 10 prescribes the eligibility
criteria of the persons who are entitled for allotment of
sites, which reads as under:
"Rule - 10. Eligibility.- No person--
(1) who is a minor.
(2) who is not a domicile of Karnataka for not
less than fifteen years immediately prior to the date of
registration; and
(3) who or any member of whose family owns a
site or a house or has been allotted a site or a house by
the Bangalore Development Authority or any other
Authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be
eligible to apply for allotment of a site;
Provided that the requirement of fifteen years
domicile may be relaxed;
(i) in the case of persons who are domiciled in
the State of Karnataka but being in the armed
forces of the Union and servicing outside the State
of Karnataka;
(ii) in the case of persons who are domiciled in
the State of Karnataka but have gone outside the
State for employment or higher studies and who
bona-fide intend to reside in the Bangalore
Metropolitan Area.
(iii) xxxx.
(iv) in the case of officers belonging to All India
Service, whose services are allotted to the
Karnataka State Cadre and domiciled in the State

- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

of Karnataka for not less than two years
immediately prior to the date of registration;
(v) in the case of serving soldiers who are either
serving in the State or outside the State of
Karnataka."
29. What is forthcoming from the provisions
extracted above is that, the Rule provides for allotment of
'G' Category sites in the ratio of 30% in favour of persons
in public life. The explanation is most important. It says
that for the purpose of category 'G' persons in public life
means persons who are serving the public or available to
the people for service as a whole are involved in the affairs
of the Community in different capacities and includes
persons who are or were elected or nominated to the
Parliament or the State Legislature. As per the
explanation, the person in public life means who are
serving the public or available to the people for service as
a whole or involved in the affairs of the community in
different capacities, which entails them to seek for
allotment of site.

- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

30. Now coming to the facts of the case, a perusal
of Letter by the father of the third respondent at
Annexure-F and in view of the counter signature and
endorsement by the then Chief Minister on the same and
in furtherance of which the order of approval came to be
passed on 09.12.2009, resulting in allotment of site
bearing No.253A on 07.06.2010. The State Government
while recommending for allotment intimated BDA, that the
approval has already been accorded for such allotment
and stated that the case of the third respondent be
considered as a special case, which is just opposite to the
Rules prescribing the eligibility criteria. Though an attempt
is made by learned counsel for the third respondent that
she is in educational field and has contributed to the public
or community, but none of the records of such sort were
placed on record to fit the third respondent within the four
of the provision stated above, which is much elaborately
stated in the explanation. The only criteria which made the
BDA to allot site to third respondent, is she is the daughter

- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

of the then sitting MP and he has recommended for
allotment of site for the alleged contribution to the
Society. This Court as well as Supreme Court in catena of
cases have held that the fairness in the action of the State
or local bodies or instrumentalities of the State while
easing out or disposing of any public property is a sine qua
non . The State and the instrumentalities of the State are
required to follow a transparent procedure and statutory
provisions as contained under the Act and the Regulations
are required to be followed. An unnecessary favouritism or
nepotism cannot be extended only because the person has
applied for allotment belongs to a political family or to a
family of the officials placed in highest pedestal. The
criteria should be in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Act and Rules there under and not on the
authority which their family members held in the public
life.
31. With pain this Court has to observe that the
persons who have been elected by the people as their

- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

representatives to be their voice in the Assembly as well
as in the Parliament, with all hope and confidence that
they would protect the rights of the citizens and will render
justice to them in all situations, but the facts of the case
goes against such hope. The persons who are placed in
high pedestal in public office are required to work for the
good of the people and not for their personal interest. A
time has come for the people who are placed in highest
position in public life to introspect whether they are
rendering the service in true senses, in serving the citizen
for protecting their rights and rendering them justice
rather indulge in supporting and feeding their personal
interest.
32. The letter by the father of the third respondent

is an example of feeding the personal interest which is
against the oath taken by the said person. The persons in
highest pedestal placed in highest public office as elected
representatives or in highest public offices by means of
their Government service are expected to work according

- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

to their oath and should stand high against the private
interest.
33. A perusal of allotment order as well as the order
incorporating the creation of the site clearly shows that
the site when it was allotted by means of allotment order
dated 07.06.2010 was not at all incorporated or created
on the layout plan and the same was incorporated even
according to the note at Annexure-J dated 12.10.2010, but
the allotment letter was issued on 07.06.2010, which
clearly shows that the letter of allotment was issued in
favour of the third respondent is an illusory site, as rightly
contended by learned Senior counsel.
34. Further, the endorsements issued by two
sections of the BDA manifestly and pellucidly indicate that
no records were forthcoming in the section regarding the
procedure for creation of Sites which were stated in the
modified plan in terms of the note stated there under. This
clearly creates a suspicion regarding creation of illusory

- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

site only on the paper as contended by learned Senior
counsel to place benefit in favour of the third respondent.
35. So far as locus standi of the petitioner is
concerned, it is his firm case that the site which was
allotted and created was an illusory site and now taking
advantage of allotment of such site, the third respondent
and BDA are coming on the site of the petitioner and
trying to illegally disturb and dispossess him in respect of
which, a suit is pending before the competent Civil Court.
Even otherwise, in terms of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN
8
VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS , at
paragraph No.23 has held as under:
"22. Thus, from the above it is evident that under
ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no
concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any
locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever.
However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to
above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of
ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable
to approach the court, and a person, who has no
personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can

8
(2013) 4 SCC 465

- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court
may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances,
even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by
him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration,
the court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect."
36. This clearly states that whenever any illegality
is brought before the Court, the Court exercising its
Constitutional power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India can go to the roots of illegality. Even if the
bonafides of the person who has approached the Court are
doubted, but the issue raised in the opinion of the Court
requires consideration. The Court can proceed suo motu in
such respect.
37. A perusal of order passed by the three member
Committee clearly shows that the Committee at first
instance at Paragraph No.6 which we have already
extracted herein above has clearly opined that the 'G'
Category site was allotted to the petitioner primarily
because of her relationship stated in the said paragraph.
However the Committee subsequently in the following
paragraphs, in terms of directions issued by this Court in

- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the PIL regarding consideration of allotment,
recommended for confirmation of the allotment to the
BDA. What weighed much in the mind of the Committee
was the affidavit submitted by the third respondent
seeking confirmation of the allotment. As per the
Allotment of Site Rules, 1984, the eligibility criteria as
contained under Rules 5 & 10 is, no person or any member
of whose family owns a site or a house or has been
allotted a site or a house by the BDA or any other
authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan area shall be
eligible to apply for allotment of site. The family as defined

in Clause (e) to Rule 2 states that "Family" in relation to a
person means such person, the wife or husband, as the
case may be of such person, and the children, parents,
sisters and brothers of such person, and wholly dependent
on him.
38. It is a fact that the father of the third
respondent was allotted a site way back in the year 1982
and confirmed the same by executing absolute sale deed

- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

in the year 1995 by the BDA itself. Further, the mother of
the third respondent purchased a property i.e., an
apartment in the year 2003 and gifted the same in favour
of son of the third respondent, immediately after two
months from the date of issuance of the Allotment Letter
in respect of Site No.253A in favour of the third
respondent i.e., on 02.08.2010, but prior to creation of the
Site No.253A on the layout plan and on the place which
was done by means of order passed by the Commissioner
on 12.10.2010. As per sub-Rule 9 of Rule 5, in case of
persons falling under Category 'G', the authorities shall
scrutinize all applications received and submit them to the
Government for approval and after getting the approval,
allot sites to such persons. In the case on hand, the same
is in reverse. The Government first issued approval and
directed to consider the case of the third respondent as a
special case under Rule 5 and directed to allot a site under
'G' Category measuring 50X80. The very words used in the
said letter dated 09.12.2009 for considering the case of

- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the third respondent as a special case does not find place
in the Allotment of Site Rules, 1984. There is no diversion
for considering a special case as enjoined in Rule 5. For
allotment of a site in 'G' Category, the person must be in
public life and the person in public life as has been
explained in the explanation are serving the public or
available to the people for service as a whole or involved
in the affairs of the Community in different capacities.
There is nothing placed on record to fit the third
respondent within the explanation provided to Category
'G', allotment of site in Category G in terms of Rule 5.
39. The indication in the letter of approval directing
to consider the case of the third respondent as a special
case clearly shows that it is outside the purview of the
explanation provided to 'G' category in Rule 5 and just
opposite to sub-Rule 9 of Rule 5.
40. A bird view of entire exercise taken by the State
Government and implementation of the same in a

- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

seamless but shameless way clearly postulates that the
same is extended to the benefit of the third respondent
showing favouritism only for the reason that she being the
daughter of a highly placed politician which is not the
criteria to be considered within Rule 5 and 10 of Allotment
of Sites Rules, 1984.
41. Even as per the third respondent, she is
running a School and earning her livelihood. This will
never come within the explanation of a person in public life
under Rule 5. The explanation is very specific regarding a
person in public life, which we have already extracted. As
such, the third respondent is not eligible to claim the said
site as per Rules 5 and 10.
42. As per Section 13 of the BDA Act, 1976, the

Commissioner of BDA has been enjoined with the power to
carry into effect the resolutions of the authority. The
proviso which is most important which we have already
extracted above, clearly says that if the Commissioner is

- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

of the opinion that any resolution of the authority
contravenes any provisions of this Act or any other law or
of any Rule, Notification, Regulation or Bye-law made or
issued under this Act or any other law or any order passed
by the Government or is prejudicial or detrimental to the
interest of the authority, he shall within 15 days to the
passing of the Resolution refer the matter to the
Government for orders and inform the Authority at its next
meeting, of the action taken by him and until the orders of
the Government on such reference are received the
Commissioner shall not be bound to give effect to the
resolution. There is no such exercise of duty by the
Commissioner forthcoming, perhaps for the reason that he
has been instructed by the highest authority indicating the
approval to allot a site against Sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 is,
the order has been given effect by allotting the site that
amounts to colourable exercise of power only to show
favouritism and nepotism as per the whims and fancies of
political entities.

- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

43. It is trite that any order obtained by means of
fraud or misrepresentation is void ab initio and null and
void. The recommendation order got by the third
respondent by means of filing a false affidavit, suppressing
the material facts regarding allotment of sites in favour of
her father and acquisition of a flat by her mother within
the vicinity of Bangalore metropolitan Area. It is on record
that the father of the third respondent has already been
allotted a site by the BDA itself. Even the BDA has kept
itself as a silent spectator to the affidavit filed by the third
respondent before the Committee. The BDA ought to have
brought to the notice of the Committee regarding the site
allotted in favour of the father of the third respondent,
which was apparently not done in the case on hand.
44. Our view gain strength with the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in MEGHMALA VS. G.NARASIMHA
REDDY , wherein the Supreme Court at Paragraph No.28
and 29 has held as under:

- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

"28. It is settled proposition of law that where an
applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or
playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law.
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or
temporal." (vide S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by
L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay,
the Court observed without equivocation that "no
judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for
fraud unravels everything."
29. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs.
M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs.
Prabhu this Court observed that a writ Court, while exercising
its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent
perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are obliged to do
justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to
prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties
invented to evade law."
45. In the above stated PIL i.e.,
W.P.No.23475/2010 and connected matters, filed
challenging the allotment of stray site under G-category by
the BDA pursuant to Government directions, wherein
under the guise of stray site allotment, the BDA allotted
several sites without following prescribed Rules and
Guidelines, thereby allotting sites to ineligible persons.

- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

This Court upon finding that the Government issued
direction to the BDA to allot sites under G-category based
on application or recommendations made by the Ministers
and MLAs has held that the Government had no authority
under Section 65 of the BDA Act, 1976 to issue direction
for allotment under G-category as held in the Judgment in
K.RAJU's case. In the PIL, it was also declared that the
sites allotted pursuant to the directions issued by the
Government under G-Category is held to be illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India holding that the Government exercising powers
under Section 65 of the BDA Act, 1976 to direct such
allotment is invalid and without authority.
46. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of SRI.K.RAJU VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
9
AUTHORITY , has clearly laid down that the Act does not
authorize the State Government to issue directions to
allow the sites to the persons of its choice. The

9
ILR 2011 KAR 120

- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

observations find place at Paragraph No.32 of the
Judgment which reads as under:
"32. As per the circular, the government can allot
the sites to the persons in public life under 'G' category.
'Persons in public life' in the context are those having to
do with the public or available to the people as a whole
and are those involved in the affairs of the community.
Learned AGA has produced one of the files bearing No.
relating to the allotments made by the
£ÀCE 49 ¨ÉA¨sÀÆ¸Áé 07
State Government under 'G' category. A perusal of the
file shows that the State Government has made
allotment of sites mostly on the recommendation of the
Ministers. The sites have been allotted in an arbitrary
manner without considering as to whether the applicants
are persona in public life. BDA forms sites of different
dimensions. No reasons have been assigned as to why
some of the applicants were allotted sites measuring 50
ft. x 80 ft. and some others were allotted sites
measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft. or 30 ft. x 40 ft. It is also
evident from the file that one T.N.Narayana Gowda,
under Secretary to Chief Minister was allotted a site
under 'G' category on 3.10.2007. When a democratic
Government in exercise of its discretion selects the
recipients for its largess, the discretion should be
exercised objectively, rationally, intelligibly, fairly and
non-arbitrarily. It is said that something is to be done
within the discretion of the authorities, that something is
to be done according to the rules of reason and justice
and not according to private opinion."
47. A perusal of the paragraph 32 clearly shows
that when a democratic Government in exercise of its
discretion selects the recipients of its choice, the discretion
should be exercised objectively, rationally, intelligibly,
fairly and non-arbitrarily. If something is to be said to be

- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

done within the discretion of the authorities that
something is to be done according to the rules of reason
and justice and not according to private opinion and
choice. The Letter issued by father of the third respondent
to then Chief Minister vide Annexure-F and the
endorsement of the then Chief Minister for consideration of
the same for allotment of a site measuring 50 x 80
forthwith and a letter according approval issued by the
Principal Secretary dated 09.12.2009 directing the
Commissioner to consider the case of the third respondent
as a special case within Rule 5 to allot a 'G' Category Site
measuring 50 x 80 and the execution of the same in a
seamless way, clearly shows that the entire exercise is
done against the provisions and without any rationale, but
only for a private gain and interest.
48. With the cost of repetition, we reiterate that,
the persons placed in highest public office in the public life
must do justice to the office, by shirking themselves to
succumb to any private interest and commit themselves to

- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

the oath which they have taken to the office for the public
good, protecting rights of their citizens and the justice.
49. The entire scenario placed before us by means
of documents clearly shows that there is total absence in
protecting the public right rather abrasive act of giving
effect to private interest of political entities seeking to allot
site in favour of their kith and kin by misusing the office,
which is highly unsustainable, arbitrary and illegal within
the four of law.
50. The entire fact before us reminds us to tone this
judgment by adverting to the words of Saint Augustine
(354-430 A.D.) in his book, The City of God, Volume 1
(426 A.D):
"Without justice, what else is the
State but a great band of robbers…?".
51. The State and its instrumentalities have failed
to protect the rights of the citizens by means of exercising
their power enjoined with their highest public office, but

- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

succumbing to the personal interests required to be dealt
with by iron hands. At this juncture, reminding again that
we are without expressing anything on the merits
regarding the title of the petitioner since the matter is
seized before the Civil Court in the suit filed by him, but
are of the considered opinion that the entire act of
allotment of site is illusory and there is no site No.253A in
the place, as there are no records for creation of the same
available and the allotment process and the
recommendation of the same are unsustainable in law. In
that view of the matter, the prayers sought in the Writ
Petition required to be favoured. Accordingly, we proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders sought in the prayer
are quashed.
(iii) Any observation made in this Writ Petition
are restricted only with respect to
allotment of site in favour of the third

- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19388-DB
WP No. 21551 of 2022

HC-KAR

respondent in terms of Rule 5 and Rule 10
of Bangalore Development Authority
(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and will
not come in the way of the Civil Court in
considering the right of the parties in
accordance with the law in the suit
O.S.No.3813/2022, pending before it.
52. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE

TKN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4