SMT P R MARY JAYASHREE vs MR G KUMAR NAIK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT


THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA


CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.301 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)

IN CCC NO.301/2023

BETWEEN:

SMT. P. R. MARY JAYASHREE
W/O LATE PATRICK C.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ST
R/O No.16, 1 CROSS, ZION ROAD, HORAMAVU
AGRA HORAMAVU, BANGALORE -560 043
…COMPLAINANT







Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA N
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka



(BY SRI. D.R.RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADV. APPEARING FOR
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADV)


AND:

MR. G. KUMAR NAIK
COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALURU -560 020
…ACCUSED

(BY SRI. K.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADV)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPT AND TO SUMMON

2

THE ACCUSED NAMED ABOVE AND HOLD THEM GUILTY OF THE
WILLFUL BREACH OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT
IN MATTER BEARING W.P.NO.14523/2020 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A)
ORDER DATED 08.03.2022.

IN WA NO.365/2023

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU-560 001

2. SMT. P. R. MARY JAYASHREE
W/O LATE PATRICK C.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
ST
R/O NO.16, 1 CROSS, ZION ROAD
HORAMAVU, AGRA HORAMAVU
BANGALORE-560 043

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADV. FOR CAVEATOR/R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DT.08.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.14523/2020 (LA-BDA) AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.

3

THESE CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION AND WRIT APPEAL
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
16.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the Order of
the learned Single Judge dated 08.03.2022 passed in
W.P.No.14523/2020 (LA-BDA) and the Contempt of Court
case No.301/2023, is filed alleging non-compliance of the
same.
2. We have heard Shri. D. R. Ravishankar, learned
Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Bharath Kumar,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
caveator/respondent No.2/complainant, Shri. Karthikeyan
B.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused
and Shri. N. Byregowda learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.

4

3. The writ petition has been filed by the respondent
herein seeking directions to the appellant to execute Sale
Deed in respect of developed land measuring 22,452 square
feet as consideration towards annexure-'A', Relinquishment
Deed dated 23.02.2016. There was a further prayer to the
appellant to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation towards
the delayed allotment of the developed lands. The
contention of the writ petitioner was that, the Bangalore
Development Authority ('BDA') had utilised an extent of 2
acres 5 guntas of land belonging to her, for the formation of
the Hebbal - KR Puram Outer Ring Road without any
acquisition proceedings in the year 2015. The respondent
preferred a representation before the BDA seeking allotment
of developed sites and her request was considered and by
Annexure 'A' - Relinquishment Deed, it was agreed that an
extent equivalent to 50% of the land would be allotted to
the writ petitioner. The relevant recitals in the Sale Deed
reads as follows:-
"Whereas the First Party has Voluntarily handed
over an extent of 02 Acre 05 Guntas Situated in
Sy.No.50/1A1, Situated in Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, for the formation of Road without

5

notification. The Bangalore Development Authority vide its
Authority Resolution No.04/2012 Dated: 16.01.2012 has
resolved to accept and take over the property subject to
the First Party agreeing to al the terms and conditions
imposed by the Second Party in this behalf.
Whereas the First Party has accordingly released,
surrendered and relinquished all his right, title and
interest and possession of the schedule property through
this relinquishment deed free of cost to the Bangalore
Development Authority this day itself. And First Party has
rights to claim remaining 50% of the said Survey
No.50/1A1.
Whereas the Second Party has called upon the First
Party to execute this relinquishment deed.
Now this deed is to the effect that the First Party has
surrendered and handed over to the Second Party as per
the Schedule agreeing to all the terms and conditions
imposed by the Second Party in this behalf.
The Schedule property is utilised by the Second
Party and for Road formation the Second Party hereby
agrees to allot alternative Site in lieu of the schedule
property relinquished by the First Party."
5. It is an admitted fact that the Agreement
between the parties was that an extent of 45,248 square
feet as alternate sites would be released to the writ
petitioner free of cost as consideration for the land
relinquished by her. It is submitted that allotment of

6

developed sites aggregating 22,796 square feet was made in
favour of the private respondent by the BDA between 2017
and 2018. Thereafter, alleging change in policy and a
decision taken by the Government of Karnataka with regard
to allotment of alternate sites on 09.10.2018, the BDA
refused to release further sites to the writ petitioner. The
petitioner filed W.P.No.14523/2020 seeking directions to the
BDA to allot and execute a Sale Deed in respect of the
balance 22,452 square feet of developed land. The Writ
Petition was allowed, which is under challenge here.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that it was in terms of the existing policy at the
relevant time that a decision had been taken to allot 45,248
square feet in return for the 2 acres and 5 guntas of land of
the writ petitioner which was utilized for the purpose of the
Outer Ring Road and Flyover. It is submitted that
thereafter, the policy in this regard had been revisited and it
was decided by the Government of Karnataka to allot only
11,979 square feet of developed area in respect of each acre
of land utilised without acquisition for a public purpose.

7

7. It is submitted that the BDA had allotted the
relevant extent of land to the writ petitioner and the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge to allot a
further extent of 22,452 square feet is absolutely
unjustifiable. It is contended that the land, which has been
handed over to the petitioner is in the nature of developed
residential plots and that only about 55% of the land area
could have been utilized as developed sites, after setting
apart the necessary property for roads, drains and common
amenities. It is therefore contended that even though
Relinquishment Deed had been executed by the writ
petitioner in favour of the BDA, the BDA was not under any
obligation to allot 45,000 square feet of developed property
to the writ petitioner.
8. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge ought to have noted that the resolution of the BDA as
well as the Relinquishment Deed permits allotment of
alternate developed sites to an extent of 50% of the
developed lands and not equivalent to 50% of the area
utilized. It is stated that the direction of the learned Single

8

Judge to allot 45,248 square feet of developed sites to the
writ petitioner amounts to unjust enrichment. Since the land
of the petitioner was agricultural land and its value was
much lesser than the value of 22,796 square feet of
developed land, which has already been allotted.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent, on the other hand, contends that it was
specifically on the understanding that 45,248 square feet of
developed land would be handed over to the petitioner that
the relinquishment deed had been executed and the refusal
on the part of the BDA to allot the said extent of land
separately is legal.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the learned Single Judge has considered the
factual and legal aspects of the matter as raised before him.
It is clear from a reading of the Relinquishment Deed that
the relinquishment is of 50% of the area of 2 acre 5 guntas
and the specific understanding that the developed land
equivalent to the balance 50% would be handed over to the
writ petitioner. Though contentions have been raised by the

9

appellant, there is nothing on record to show that there was
any other Agreement between the parties.
11. The learned Single Judge has also considered the
Agreement between the parties, and has come to the
conclusion that the act of the BDA in getting the land
relinquished gives rise to a claim of promissory estoppel in
favour of the writ petitioner. We notice that the land
relinquished by the writ petitioner was to an extent of 2
acres 5 guntas, that is, 85 guntas of land which would
amount to approximately 92,565 square feet. 50% of the
said extent would work out to 46,282.5 square feet of land.
It is also pertinent to notice there that the land was acquired
for the formation of a road and not for the formation of any
layout. Therefore, the entire extent of land relinquished by
the writ petitions, free of cost has been utilised by the
appellant. Therefore, the agreement between the writ
petitioner and the BDA at the time of execution of the
release deed was specifically that the writ petitioner would
be entitled to approximately 50% of the land that she lost to

10

the public need without an acquisition, be granted to her in
the nature of developed sites.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has relied on a judgment dated 12.09.2019 in Writ
Appeal No.697/2018. However, we have notice that the
facts considered in the above appeal were as follows:-
The BDA had utilised 1.5 guntas of land for the
formation of the Outer Ring Road in the year 1996. It is
stated that he had requested for allotment of 50% of the
land lost by him as alternate site and for such 50%, sites
had already been allotted to him. He had thereafter filed the
writ petition seeking alternate sites equivalent to 100% of
the land utilized from him without acquisition. It was the
said contention that had been considered by the Division
Bench of this Court and it was found that the value of the
land lost by him in 1996 was far less than the value of the
land which has been allotted to him, as 50% of the area of
the land lost by him. It was in the said circumstances, that
the appeal was allowed and the writ petition stood
dismissed.

11

13. Further, the said judgment was not rendered in a
case where the land loser was prompted to execute a
relinquishment deed on the specific understanding that 50%
of the land in question would be allotted to her in the form
of developed sites.
14. However, in the instant case, the distinctions are
as stated herein before. The actual area of land lost by the
writ petitioner in the instant case was 92,565 square feet.
There was a clear Relinquishment Deed executed, wherein it
was specifically stated that 50% of the land will be handed
over as developed sites. Only an extent of 22,796 square
feet has been allotted to the petitioner as developed sites. In
the circumstances, the contentions raised by the appellant
.
cannot be accepted
15. Having considered the contentions advanced and
the materials on record, we are of the opinion that there is
no ground for interference with the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.

12

16. In the result:-
(i) The writ appeal fails and the same shall stand
dismissed .

(ii) The appellant shall comply with the
directions of the learned Single Judge and
allot 22452 sq ft. of land in terms of its
original decision based on which, the
Relinquishment Deed dated 23.02.2016 was
executed by the writ petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.

(iii) The Contempt of Court Case is closed with
a direction to the Commissioner, BDA, to
allot the developed sites measuring, 22452
sq. feet within a period of three months.
However, liberty is reserved to the
complainant to reopen the case, if the
directions, as above, are not complied with.

13

All Pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand
disposed of .


Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE


cp*