Karnataka HC Orders ₹50,000 Costs After Woman Held Land Buyers “At Ransom,” Bars Incentive-Site Allotments to Relatives for 3 Acres Pending Partition Suit

The petitioner, a member of the family claiming interests in land acquired for the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, sought to prevent the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) from allotting developed sites under its 60:40 or other incentive scheme to family members or third parties while a partition suit, O.S. No. 7/2012, was pending.

She also sought consideration of her representation for an incentive site

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claimed interests under sale deeds dated 29 August 2005.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had affixed her left thumb mark to the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 and that land had also been conveyed to respondent No. 4.

The petitioner was a defendant in the pending partition suit.

Whether the BDA should be restrained from allotting incentive sites to the family members or purchasers in respect of the acquired lands while O.S. No. 7/2012 remained pending.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the BDA to allot her an incentive site in response to her representation dated 6 May 2025.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

No specific statutory provision, precedent, or general legal test was identified in the order.

The Court applied a case-specific approach: the petitioner could not seek to prevent the purchasers from receiving developed land in lieu of compensation in respect of land conveyed to them under sale deeds to which she had participated; meanwhile, incentive-site allotments concerning the distinct, unalienated land implicated in the pending partition suit were to be withheld until that suit was decided.

The Court declined to restrain allotments to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of land conveyed to them, noting both the petitioner’s participation in the sale deed to respondent No. 3 and the conveyance to respondent No. 4.

It distinguished the remaining 1 acre in Sy. No. 18/3 and 2 acres in Sy. No. 18/1, which were not alienated and were part of the subject matter of the pending partition suit.

To preserve the position concerning those lands, it directed that incentive sites not be released to the other family members who were defendants in that suit until its disposal.

The Court did not separately grant the petitioner’s request for an incentive site on the basis of her representation.

The Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy; failing payment, the trial court was directed to raise appropriate demands in the suit to recover the amount.

The pending application to vacate the interim stay was disposed of as no longer surviving.