BDCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29756 OF 2024 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
BDCC BANK EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH
NO.6, "LAKSHMI SADAN", 5 MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560018
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. N.S. BETTASWAMY GOWDA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANANDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by
HEMALATHA J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
(BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAYKUMAR M.,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 27.07.2016 BEARING
NO.BEM AA PA/AAYAKTHARU/2488/2016-17 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-S) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question a show-cause notice
bearing No. dated
¨ÉAC¥Áæ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/2488/2016-2017, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
27.07.2016 issued by the respondent No.1 and the consequent
order bearing No. dated
©rJ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/GPÁ-1/954/2024-25
26.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, by which the
request of the petitioner for conclusion of the bulk allotment
made in its favour was rejected. The petitioner has also sought
for a direction to the respondent No.1 to execute a deed of
conveyance in its favour to conclude the bulk allotment
pursuant to the letter dated 08.09.2000.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
2. (i) The petitioner claims to be a Co-operative
Society established with an objective to acquire land and
provide housing to its members. It claims that in furtherance of
its objective, it entered into an agreement of sale dated
26.08.1981 to purchase 10 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.78
of Nagarbhavi village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk, at a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- per acre. This agreement was
later confirmed by the family members of the vendor in terms
of supplementary agreements of sale dated 12.09.1984 and
21.10.1991. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1
proposed to acquire the land in Sy.No.78 in terms of a
preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 followed by a final
notification dated 16.08.1985 and an award dated 12.05.1988
was passed. The petitioner claimed that it made requests
before the respondent No.1, consequent to which the
respondent No.1 informed it vide letter dated 11.04.1988 to
apply against any bulk allotment that may be notified by the
respondent No.1. It was further stated that the land in
Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi would be included in the said
notification to enable the petitioner to apply. The petitioner
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
claims that aggrieved by the said letter, it filed
W.P.No.12119/1988 challenging the acquisition and
alternatively sought bulk allotment of the land in Sy.No.78. The
said writ petition and the consequent writ appeal filed in
W.A.No.1696/1988 were dismissed. A Special Leave Petition
was filed in a Civil Appeal No.17/1991. In the interregnum, the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth
referred to as 'BDA Act, 1976') was amended retrospectively
with effect from 20.12.1975 and Section 38 of the BDA Act,
1976 was amended to provide for bulk allotments. The
petitioner claimed that as a result, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed Civil Appeal No.17/1991 as infructuous vide order
dated 18.09.1995 and directed the petitioner to approach the
respondent No.1 directly for bulk allotment of the said land or
any other land notified for acquisition by the respondent No.1.
(ii) The respondent No.1 thereafter issued a notification
on 06.05.1998 for bulk allotment of the land in Sy.No.78 of
Nagarbhavi in respect of an area measuring 5 acres. The
petitioner also applied for the same. The respondent No.1 vide
resolution dated 31.12.1997 on Subject No.335/1997 accorded
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
approval for bulk allotment, which was approved by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development vide order
dated 06.01.1999. Following this, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development vide its letter dated 23.05.2000 fixed
the price at a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- per acre. A demand letter
dated 08.09.2000 was also issued by respondent No.1 calling
upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.51,27,500/- towards the
value of 5 acres of land to be allotted in bulk. Accordingly, the
petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.51,27,500/- in terms of a
Demand Draft dated 17.10.2000.
(iii) Petitioner contends that after nearly 15 years from
the date of issuing the final notification, the legal
representatives of the erstwhile landowner filed
W.P.No.27671/2000 challenging the preliminary notification
dated 15.07.1982, final notification dated 16.08.1985 and the
award dated 12.05.1988. The said writ petition was dismissed
in terms of an order dated 16.01.2004. W.A.No.2945/2004 was
also dismissed on 15.09.2004 following which Special Leave
Petition in Civil Appeal No.175/2009 was also dismissed on
14.01.2009. Review Petition (Civil) No.420/2009 was also
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
dismissed on 14.01.2009. Petitioner contends that the erstwhile
land owners then filed O.S.No.911/2009 against the respondent
No.1 for perpetual injunction. Though the Civil Court initially
granted an interim order, thereafter the same was vacated and
the suit also came to be dismissed on 04.02.2010 as not
pressed. Petitioner contends that the erstwhile landowners
thereafter submitted representations to the respondent No.2
for de-notification of the land bearing Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi
under Section 48A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A writ
petition in W.P.No.4243/2009 was also filed on 13.02.2009 by
the erstwhile landlowners for a direction to the authorities to
consider and decide their applications for de-notification. In the
said writ petition, it was held that the erstwhile landowners had
lost possession and therefore, their prayer for de-notification
cannot be considered. Consequently, the writ petition was
dismissed. Later, W.A.Nos.1642-1646/2009 were filed by them
which too was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2009. SLP
(Civil) Nos.14930-14934/2009 filed thereagainst was also
dismissed in terms of an order dated 17.08.2009.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
(iv) Petitioner contends that it came to know that the
Chief Minister of Karnataka had ordered de-notification of the
land in Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi, measuring 5 acres 13 guntas
at the request of the petitioners vide his order dated
16.10.2009. On 18.11.2009, the erstwhile landowners filed
W.P.Nos.34023-27/2009 seeking a direction against the State
to notify the order passed by the Chief Minister of Karnataka on
16.10.2009 in the Official Gazette. The said writ petitions were
thereafter withdrawn by the erstwhile landowners on
05.03.2010. The erstwhile landowners again filed
W.P.No.5779/2010 challenging the communications issued by
the respondent No.1, whereby the bulk allotment was made in
favour of the petitioner was approved. The said writ petition
was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated
09.03.2010. W.A.No.1666/2010 preferred by the erstwhile
landowners was also dismissed as withdrawn.
(v) Pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Minister
of Karnataka, referred supra, a notification bearing
No.UDD/426/MNX/2007 dated 02.06.2010 was issued under
Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 withdrawing
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner challenged the same
in W.P.No.21349/2010. This Court vide order dated 10.11.2010
held that the matter required further examination as it had a
public flavour and referred the matter to the Division Bench.
Therefore, a notification dated 19.10.2010 was issued
withdrawing the earlier notification dated 02.06.2010.
Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed
as the same was rendered infructuous in view of withdrawal of
the order of de-notification.
(vi) When things stood thus, the erstwhile landowners
filed W.P.No.37111/2010 challenging the notification dated
19.10.2010. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order
dated 29.03.2012 on the ground that the erstwhile landowners
did not have any locus standi. Special Leave Petitions preferred
against the said order in SLP (Civil) Nos.27537-38/2012 were
dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2016. Review petitions were
thereafter filed by the erstwhile landowners in R.P.Nos.2893-
2894/2016 which too were dismissed vide order dated
26.07.2016. Thereafter, the erstwhile landowners filed
W.P.No.5201/2017 challenging the acquisition proceedings on
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
the ground that it had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013. The said writ petition
was dismissed in terms of an order dated 21.08.2024. It is
contended that W.A.No.1471/2024 is filed which too was
dismissed on 10.11.2025.
(vii) Petitioner contends that it was requesting the
respondent No.1 time and again to execute a deed of
conveyance in its favour and since none of them found favour,
it filed W.P.No.36340/2009 seeking for a direction to execute a
deed of conveyance. The respondent No.1 filed its statement of
objections in the said writ petition contending that it would
provide alternate land instead of the land in Sy.No.78 as it was
required for its use. It is contended that the respondent No.1
never took a stand that the petitioner was not eligible for
allotment of land in bulk under Section 38B of the BDA Act,
1976. During the pendency of W.P.No.36340/2009, the
respondent No.1 issued an order dated 27.07.2016 unilaterally
withdrawing the bulk allotment issued in favour of the
petitioner and also forfeited a sum of Rs.51,27,500/-. Aggrieved
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.47525/2016. In view of the
withdrawal of the order of bulk allotment, W.P.No.36340/2009
was disposed off on 28.03.2019 reserving liberty to the
petitioner to revive the proceeding for execution of the deed of
conveyance in the event the petitioner succeeds in
W.P.No.47525/2016.
(viii) During the pendency of W.P.No.47525/2016, the
petitioner amended its objectives and incorporated objects
enabling it to acquire lands for the purpose of constructing
houses for its members. The petitioner issued a notice dated
25.08.2023 to all its members for conducting the General Body
meeting. Thereafter, at the meeting held on 10.09.2023, it was
unanimously resolved to pass an amendment to amend the
objectives of the petitioner to incorporate the aforesaid objects.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
25.09.2023 and enclosed its proposal for amendment of its
objects under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959. Since the said representation was not
considered, the petitioner claims that it was deemed to be
registered under Section 12(2A) of the Karnataka Co-operative
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
Societies Act, 1959. Petitioner claims that pursuant to the
General Body meeting, it has amended its objectives and bye-
laws and the said change is reported to the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies on 25.09.2024. Petitioner contends that the
amendment of the bye-laws was brought to the notice of this
Court in W.P.No.47525/2016 and this Court held that the order
dated 27.07.2016 was passed by the respondent No.1 without
providing an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.
Hence, the said order dated 27.07.2016 was treated as a show-
cause notice and the petitioner was permitted to reply to the
said notice within a period of two weeks. The parties were
directed to maintain status quo as regards the subject land.
(ix) Pursuant to the order passed in WP No.47525/2016,
the petitioner issued a reply on 02.09.2024 highlighting that it
had complied with all the requirements of the demand letter
issued by the respondent No.1 and that it had promptly paid
the amount. It further stated that a perusal of the show-cause
notice indicated that it was issued at the instance of the
erstwhile landowners. It claimed that the amendments to the
bye-laws of the society allowed it to acquire land for housing
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
which was also brought to the notice of the respondent No.1.
However, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order
dated 26.09.2024 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and
affirming the show-cause notice dated 27.07.2016.
(x) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is
before this Court.
3. (i) A statement of objections is filed by the
respondent No.1 wherein it has admitted the fact of the
petitioner making a request for allotment of land in Sy.No.78 of
Nagarbhavi in bulk. It has also admitted that the application
was placed before the Bulk Allotment Committee which passed
a resolution on Subject No.335/1997 on 31.12.1997 and
resolved to allot up to 5 acres of land to the petitioner under
bulk allotment. The State Government vide order bearing
No.UDD/322/BDA/98 dated 06.01.1999 granted approval for
the resolution of the Committee. The respondent No.1 on
19.02.1999 called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of
Rs.5,26,48,879/- towards cost of 5 acres of land. The petitioner
then made a request before the State Government for
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
reduction of the cost of the land, consequent to which the State
Government by its letter dated 23.05.2000 granted approval
for allotment of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi at a
cost of Rs.10,25,000/- per acre. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.51,27,500/- was deposited by the petitioner on 20.10.2000.
(ii) It is contended that the respondent No.1 had
already formed a layout in Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi village. In
view of the formation of the layout and considering the fact
that as per the zonal regulation, the society could form sites
only in 50% of the area and the remaining 50% had to be
reserved for park, playground, civic amenities and roads, the
respondent No.1 by its letter dated 22.04.2002 informed the
petitioner that it had at a meeting held on 07.02.2002 resolved
on Subject No.83/2001 to allot 1 acre 36 guntas to the society
in bulk. The said letter was received by the petitioner - society
on 24.04.2002. The petitioner filed W.P.No.28141/2002 for a
direction to the respondent No.1 to allot 5 acres of land. The
said writ petition was disposed off directing the petitioner to
appear before the respondent No.1 and furnish documents to
show its entitlement for 5 acres of land and the respondent
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
No.1 was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and
hand over possession of 1 acre 36 guntas of land only and not
5 acres as claimed. The respondent No.1 identified 1 acre 36
guntas of land in Sy.No.36 of Malagala Village. But in view of a
litigation, the possession of the said site could not be handed
over to the petitioner. Later, respondent No.1 identified 1 acre
36 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.55/1 and 2 of Malagala village.
However, the erstwhile landowner had filed W.P.No.8340/2003
which was dismissed on 24.07.2007 and W.A.No.1979/2007
was also dismissed on 25.05.2009.
(iii) Meanwhile, the area was developed for commercial
purposes and large number of unauthorised construction came
up in the unallotted sites in Sy.No.78. Therefore, the
respondent No.1 at a meeting held on 12.01.2010 on Subject
No.14/2010, resolved to auction the unallotted sites formed in
Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi and also to remove the unauthorised
construction and to recall its earlier resolution on Subject
No.106/2000 dated 19.08.2000, whereby it had resolved to
allot 5 acres of land in Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi village to this
petitioner. It was also resolved to allot 5 acres of land in some
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
other layout to be formed by the respondent No.1 to the
petitioner and to send the proposal to the State Government
with request to recall its earlier order dated 23.05.2000 and to
approve the above proposal. The proposal was sent to the
State Government on 26.08.2010. The respondent No.1 claims
that the petitioner filed W.P.No.36340/2009 seeking for a
direction to execute a conveyance deed in respect of 5 acres of
land allotted to it in bulk and also to quash the resolution dated
12.01.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 on Subject
No.14/2010. The respondent No.1 considered the eligibility
conditions prescribed under Section 38B of the BDA Act, 1976
and noticed that the petitioner though was a Co-operative
Society but its objectives did not permit acquisition of land,
formation of layouts and allotment to its members. It was not a
housing society, but was a society which was permitted to
attract capital and grant loan to its members for construction or
purchasing sites and dwelling houses etc. The respondent No.1
learnt that the petitioner had sought for amendment of its bye-
laws and inserted a provision to enable it to purchase land,
form sites and allot to its members, which was however
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
rejected by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in
terms of an order dated 01.02.2001. Therefore, it contended
that the object of the society was not to form layouts and allot
site to its members and therefore, the petitioner was not
entitled for allotment of land in bulk. Therefore, the respondent
No.1 claimed that it had rightly rejected the request of the
petitioner for bulk allotment. The writ petition filed in
W.P.No.36340/2009 was disposed off vide order dated
28.03.2019 by which time the respondent No.1 had already
passed an order rejecting the prayer for bulk allotment. This
was then challenged in W.P.No.47525/2016, which was allowed
and the respondent No.1 was directed to treat the order dated
27.07.2016 as a show-cause notice. The petitioner then filed its
reply.
(iv) During the pendency of W.P.No.47525/2016, the
petitioner once again sought for amendment of its bye-laws in
2023 which was purportedly accepted by the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies on 04.11.2024. It contended that though
the petitioner is now eligible for allotment of land in bulk but as
on the date of the previous order of bulk allotment, it was
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
ineligible for allotment. It thus contended that the petitioner
was not a Housing Society as on the date of the application for
allotment in bulk and as on the date when the respondent No.1
cancelled the order of bulk allotment on 27.07.2016. Therefore,
it is contended that the petitioner cannot allege that the
respondent No.1 is bound by the principle of promissory
estoppel and that the petitioner is entitled to legitimately
expect the conclusion of the bulk allotment.
(v) With these and similar contentions, it contended
that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Furthermore, it
contended that Section 38B of the BDA Act, 1976 does not
create any mandatory obligation to allot land but is only an
enabling provision empowering the authority to consider
applications for bulk allotment to eligible societies.
4. (i) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the ground on which the respondent No.1 has
alleged that the petitioner is not eligible under Section 38B of
the BDA Act, 1976 for bulk allotment is that the petitioner is
not a Housing Co-operative Society. It is contended that the
petitioner had amended its objectives and filed its proposal for
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
amendment dated 25.09.2023 before the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies and since the same was not considered
within three months, under Section 12(2-A) of the Act, 1959,
there is a deemed approval of the said proposal from
26.12.2023. Hence, as on the date of the passing of the
impugned order dated 26.09.2024, the bye-laws of the
petitioner society permitted it to engage in housing activities.
He contends that the respondent No.1 disregarded this aspect
and has held that no documents were placed to show the
change of bye-laws of the petitioner - society. He contends that
when the petitioner applied for bulk allotment, on 06.05.1998
the respondent No.1 had categorically endorsed that the
petitioner may apply for bulk allotment in future and that
Sy.No.78 was also included in the bulk allotment notification to
enable the petitioner to apply. He contends that the State
Government has also granted approval on 06.01.1999 and
23.05.2000 and thereafter, the respondent No.1 had issued a
demand dated 08.09.2000 demanding a sum of Rs.51,27,500/-
which was accordingly paid. Therefore, he contends that the
respondent No.1 cannot blow hot and cold by contending that
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
the petitioner is now not eligible for bulk allotment. He
therefore contends that the respondent No.1 is barred from
contending that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of a
bulk allotment and that the respondent No.1 is estopped by the
principles of promissory estoppel. He also contends that the
petitioner is entitled to legitimately expect that the bulk
allotment order passed in its favour would culminate in a
conveyance.
(ii) He contends that after the State Government and
the respondent No.1 passed an order directing the petitioner to
pay sum of Rs.51,27,500/-, the same was deposited vide a
demand draft which is encashed by the respondent No.1. He
contends that when a person alters his position based on a
promise made by an instrumentality of the State, principles of
promissory estoppel would apply. In support of this contention,
he relied upon the judgment of this Court in K.S. Prakash vs
Bangalore Development Authority [ILR 1990 KAR 3599] .
He also contended that apart from depositing a sum of
Rs.51,27,500/-, the petitioner has also incurred significant
expenditure in contesting various litigations against the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
landowners solely on the basis that it is an allottee of the land
in question and in all these proceedings, the respondent No.1
never took a contention that the petitioner was ineligible for
allotment and that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was
erroneous. He therefore, contended that petitioner is
legitimately entitled to expect that the respondent No.1 would
ensure that the land is conveyed to it. He further contended
that the very same ground was urged by the erstwhile
landowners in W.P.No.5779/2010 which was resisted by the
respondent No.1. However, it did not raise any contention that
the allotment in favour of the petitioner was invalid. When the
petitioner filed W.P.No.36340/2009 seeking conveyance of the
land allotted to it in bulk, the respondent No.1 filed objections
offering alternate land and never raised a ground that the
petitioner was not eligible for bulk allotment. Therefore, he
contended that the respondent No.1 is estopped by record and
conduct from taking any contrary stand in the present
proceedings by passing the impugned order. He also contends
that the principles of constructive res judicata is applicable as
the respondent No.1 never raised such a ground in an earlier
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
proceeding between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. He
contends that the respondent No.1 has claimed in its objections
that no unequivocal promise was made by it that the land
would be allotted in bulk to the petitioner and therefore, no
binding expectation of allotment could be stated to have been
made. He contends that this is contrary to numerous decisions
of this Court including the judgment in S. Lalithamma vs
State of Karnataka and another [2018 SCC OnLine KAR
4767] , where it was categorically held that, "a n allotment
letter calling for payment is an 'offer' and the due payment of
the demanded amount would amount to acceptance, meaning
thereby that an accomplished transaction in the nature of a
contract comes into existence. As such, the action of the BDA in
seeking to resile from the said obligation would be wholly
arbitrary and contrary to law."
(iii) He contends that the impugned show-cause notice
dated 27.07.2016 reveals that the same was issued at the
instance of the erstwhile landowners whose right, title and
interest in the property stood wholly extinguished. Therefore, it
is clear that the entire proceeding is an attempt on the part of
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
the erstwhile landowners to regain the land in question. He
contends that the respondent No.1 has not only
withdrawn/cancelled the order of bulk allotment but also
forfeited a sum of Rs.51,27,500/- paid in the year 2000 and no
reasons are mentioned justifying the forfeiture and hence, the
same is arbitrary and also violates Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. He also contends that the impugned
notice relies on a Circular dated 12.08.2014 which is wholly
inapplicable to the petitioner as it applies to societies registered
in the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and not to
societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act, 1959. He therefore, contends that the reliance placed on
the Circular to withdraw the bulk allotment made in favour of
the petitioner is extraneous and hence, the impugned order is
arbitrary. He contends that the respondent No.1 has stated in
the statement of objections that various plots of various sizes
have been formed and buildings have been constructed over
the property. However, the said statement is wholly contrary to
the interim orders passed by this Court across various writ
petitions from the year 2005. He contends that from the year
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
2005, the property has been the subject matter of litigation and
interim orders are passed. He has invited the attention of the
Court to the interim order passed in SLP (Civil) No.2173/2005
which was in force till 14.01.2009, interim order dated
12.01.2010 passed in W.P.No.36340/2009 which was in force
till 28.03.2019 and interim order dated 01.12.2010 in
W.P.No.37111/2010 which was in force till 29.03.2012, an
interim order dated 06.09.2016 in W.P.No.47525/2016 which
was in force till 21.08.2024 and the interim order dated
14.02.2017 in W.P.No.5201/2017 which was in force till
21.08.2024. He contends that the inability of the respondent
No.1 to form layout due to interim orders is also borne from the
record. He contends in a counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.1 in SLP (Civil) No.2173/2005
(C.A.No.174/2009), it had admitted that no layout was formed
in the light of the interim orders of the Court regarding the land
in Sy.No.78.
(iv) He further contends that a memo is filed by the
petitioner dated 12.08.2025 wherein it has enclosed a
communication dated 18.09.2007 addressed by the respondent
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
No.1 wherein it is admitted that no layout is formed in
Sy.No.78 due to pendency of litigation. He contends that the
non-development of the layout in Sy.No.78 is also recorded by
this Court in para 11 of the order dated 26.05.2009 in
W.A.No.1642/2009. Likewise, in the statement of objections
dated 11.01.2010 in W.P.No.36040/2009, the respondent No.1
has admitted that the formation of layout in Sy.No.78 could not
be completed due to several litigations. He therefore, contends
that no layout is formed and assuming such a layout is formed,
the same would be contrary to the orders of the Court and
would hence be non-est in the eyes of law. He contends that
the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as it has
withdrawn the bulk allotment made after 16 years. He contends
that such revisionary power cannot be exercised after
inordinate delay and must be exercised within a reasonable
time. In support of this contention, he relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint
Collector and another vs. D. Narsingha Rao and others
[2015 (3) SCC 695] . He also relied upon the judgment
passed in Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
Narichania and others [(2010) 9 SCC 437] . He contends
that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was done
upon the approval accorded by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development on 06.01.1999 and the letter dated
23.06.2000. Therefore, the permission once having been
granted by the Department of Urban Development, the action
of the respondent No.1 unilaterally withdrawing the bulk
allotment would be non-est and contrary to Government
orders. He contends that the conduct of the respondent No.1 is
unbecoming.
(v) He contends that Article 14 of the Constitution of
India mandates that all statutory bodies must act in a fair and
transparent manner. In the instant case, the respondent No.1
having demanded and collected a sum of Rs.51,27,500/-,
without any reasons, to compound the misery of the petitioner
has passed the impugned order not only cancelling the bulk
allotment but also forfeiting the consideration paid by the
petitioner. He contends that the respondent No.1 represented
that the petitioner is a bulk allottee before various Courts in
various rounds of litigation and when the petitioner sought
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
conveyance of the subject land, it took a volte face to contend
that the allotment was never made and that it was only an offer
made by it to the petitioner. He also contends that the
respondent No.1 did not even comply with the direction issued
in W.P.No.28141/2022 whereby respondent No.1 was directed
to handover possession of 1 acre 36 guntas of land in
Sy.No.78. He therefore, contends that the action of the
respondent No.1 in cancelling the allotment made to the
petitioner in bulk after so many years is arbitrary and is liable
to be interfered with.
5. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1
submitted that the petitioner was admittedly not a Housing Co-
operative Society but more in the nature of Credit Co-operative
Society. He contends that under Section 38B of the BDA Act,
1976, the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of land in
bulk. He contends that the petitioner had represented that it
was a Housing Co-operative Society and based upon such a
representation, the land in Sy.No.78 of Nagarbhavi was allotted
to it. He contends that the objectives of the petitioner was
amended from November, 2024 and therefore, till November,
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
2024, the petitioner was not a Housing Co-operative Society
and therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in rejecting
the request of the petitioner for conclusion of the allotment. He
contends that the amendment of the bye-laws of the society
would come into effect from the date, the Registrar registered
the amendments. In the instant case, the Registrar initially
rejected it and thereafter, had registered it in November, 2024.
Thus, he contends that the petitioner is not entitled for
allotment of land in bulk since as on the date of the application,
the petitioner was not a Housing Society. In support of this
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate
bench of this Court in Mallappa vs. The Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies and another [ILR 1980 Karnataka
1234]. He also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others vs.
State of Haryana and others [(1981) 1 SCC 11] and Shree
Sidhbali Steels Limited and others vs State of Uttar
Pradesh and others [(2011) 3 SCC 193] .
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel
for the respondent No.1.
7. The fact that 5 acres of land in Sy.No.78 of
Nagarbhavi was notified by inviting applications from eligible
entities for bulk allotment, is not in dispute. It is also not in
dispute that the respondent No.1 passed a resolution accepting
the request of the petitioner and the same was reserved for the
orders of the State Government, who approved it. The State
Government thereafter reduced the value of bulk allotment and
a demand raised by the respondent No.1 for a sum of
Rs.10,25,000/- per acre was also fulfilled by the petitioner.
Later, the erstwhile owners of the land in Sy.No.78 challenged
the acquisition of the land in W.P.No.27671/2000. The
petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent in the said writ
petition and it was contended in the said writ petition that the
land was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner. Therefore,
from the year 2000, the respondent No.1 had an opportunity to
recall its resolution and revoke the order of allotment.
However, the respondent No.1 did not take any action from the
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
year 2000 till the year 2016 by which time, various writ
petitions and other proceedings were initiated before this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was defended effectively
by the respondent No.1 and the petitioner. In all these
proceedings, the respondent No.1 did not think it fit to revisit
the order allotting land in bulk to the petitioner. Even in
W.P.No.36340/2009, the respondent No.1 offered to allot
suitable alternate land to the petitioner but did not chose to
cancel the allotment. As a matter of fact, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P.No.47525/2016 had reserved liberty to the
respondent No.1 to go into the validity or otherwise of the
allotment made in favour of the petitioner. However, the
respondent No.1 did not take advantage of the said observation
and cancel the allotment.
8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner, the petitioner having paid a sum of
Rs.51,27,500/- in the year 2000, is entitled to legitimately
expect that the respondent No.1 would fulfill its promise by
concluding the transaction. It is this legitimate expectation
that compelled the petitioner to defend several litigation
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
initiated by the erstwhile landowners in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.78 of Nagarabhavi. As rightly contended by the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.1
must have rescinded the resolution dated 31.12.1997 within a
reasonable time and it cannot sleep over it, even when all the
material documents were available to it to take action. It may
be that the petitioner was not a housing society as on the date,
the application was filed seeking bulk allotment. This Court,
however cannot lose sight of the fact that the members of the
petitioner would have parted with large sums of money in the
fond hope of getting a site. The respondent No.1 therefore, is
estopped by conduct from now taking a contrary view to
contend that the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of
land in bulk under Section 38B of the BDA Act, 1976. As rightly
contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner soon
after an amendment to the objectives of the petitioner, the
same was filed before the Registrar. However, the Registrar did
not take a decision in the matter within the time stipulated and
consequently, the amendment sought for was deemed to have
been registered in view of Section 12(2A) of the Karnataka
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. It may be that the Registrar
later rejected the application but the fact remains that prior to
the impugned order being passed, there was already an
amendment to the objectives of the petitioner society. It is no
doubt true that the amendment would come into effect from
the date of its registration and in the instant case, the
amendment was registered with effect from 04.11.2024 by
which time, the impugned order was passed on 26.09.2024.
However, as stated above, respondent No.1 having allowed the
petitioner to defend various litigation before the various Courts
on the premise that it was an allottee of a land in bulk, it
cannot now upset the applecart by contending that the
petitioner was not entitled to be registered as an applicant for
bulk allotment. The respondent No.1 being an instrumentality
of the State and a statutory body is bound to stick to its
promise and is bound to honour its commitment. The way in
which the respondent No.1 has conducted itself over the years
and the way in which it has belatedly cancelled the allotment of
land in bulk and also forfeit the sum of Rs.51,27,500/-, shows
the arbitrary way in which the respondent No.1 has conducted
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
itself. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation that the
impugned show-cause notice and the order passed by the
respondent No.1 is liable to be interfered with.
9. Consequently, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned show-cause notice bearing
No. dated
¨ÉAC¥Áæ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/2488/2016-2017, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
27.07.2016 and the consequent order bearing
No. dated 26.09.2024
©rJ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/GPÁ-1/954/2024-25
passed by the respondent No.1, are quashed.
(iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to convey 5 acres
of land in Sy.No.78 of Nagarabhavi village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, to the
petitioner within one month from the date of receipt
of copy of this order by executing necessary deeds
of conveyance. If the area available in Sy.No.78 is
less than 5 acres, the respondent No.1 shall convey
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
the extent available and refund the proportionate
consideration along with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum from the date of deposit till the date of
refund.
(iv) On such conveyance, the petitioner shall obtain
necessary plan for forming a layout from the
respondent No.1 and execute relinquishment
deed/s in respect of roads/drains/parks and open
spaces in favour of the respondent No.1, who shall
maintain same.
(v) Copy of this order shall be circulated by the
petitioner to all its members.
(vi) The petitioner shall also file list of members based
on seniority i.e., based on dates when they
deposited sital value seeking allotment of sites in
Sy.No.78 of Nagarabhavi. Allotment of sites shall
only be in accordance with such list.
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58169
WP No. 29756 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010631292024
(vii) List of seniority shall be filed before this Court
within a month from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order.
List this petition on 20.11.2026 for compliance.
In view of disposal of the petitions, pending I.As., if any,
do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed
off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44