Karnataka High Court
Smt Roopa N vs The Bengaluru Development Authority on 10 January, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:938
WP No. 8216 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 8216 OF 2021 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT ROOPA N
W/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
RESIDING AT NO.818/A
1ST CROSS, II PHASE
7TH BLOCK, HOSAKEREHALLI
BSK III STAGE
BBMP WARD NO.161
BENGALURU - 560 085
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMARNATH V., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
signed by
SUMA B N BY ITS COMMISSIONER
Location: BDA COMPLEX
High Court of
Karnataka KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH RAOD
BENGALURU - 560 020
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY - 3
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BDA COMPLEX
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH RAOD
BENGALURU - 560 020
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:938
WP No. 8216 of 2021
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL TASK FORCE DIVISION
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BDA COMPLEX
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020
4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020
5. SRI VIVEK JAIN B V
S/O LATE VAJRANABHA B V
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.170, 5TH CROSS
ITTUMADU, BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 GO R-3
R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-
DIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO
CONTINUE IN POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON
THE LAND SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE HEREIN BELOW WHICH
BEING CONSTRUCTED IN TERMS OF LICENSE DATED
02.07.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 NOT
TO PROCEED TO CANCEL THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED
18.01.2019, POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.02.2019
AND SALE DEED DATED 19.02.2019 REGISTERED ON
28.02.2019 EXECUTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BDA IN
FAVOUR OF THE R-5, REGD AS DOC.NO.BDA-1-08945/2018-19
OF BOOK NO.I STORED IN CD.NO.BDAD279 AT THE OFFICE OF
THE ADDL. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT, TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:938
WP No. 8216 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other Writ or direction, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue in possession of the residential house on the land shown in the schedule herein below which being constructed in terms of License dated 02.07.2019 vide Annexure-H;
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ or direction, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 not to proceed to cancel the allotment letter dated 18.01.2019, Possession Certificate dated 29.02.2019 and Sale deed dated 19.02.2019 registered on 28.02.2019 executed by the Deputy Secretary, BDA in favour of the 5th respondent, regd as Doc.No.BDA-
1-08945/2018-19 of Book No.I stored in CD No.BDAD279 at the office of the Addl.District Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District, true copies of which are produced at Annexure-A, B and C respectively.
(iii) In the alternative, the 1st respondent be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner a tentative sum of Rupees One Crore towards her investment on the schedule property and suffering due to the alleged illegality said to have been committed by the servants of the BDA leading to initiate proceedings against the vendor of the petitioner and other officials of BDA, pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.7/2021 having regard -4- NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021 to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, vide Annexure-K;
(iv) Issue any other writ or order to meet in the ends of justice."
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the bonafide purchaser of the site bearing No.818A, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet in all measuring 1500 square feet, formed in Sy.No.96, Hosekerehalli, 7th Block, 2nd Stage, BSK III Stage, Bengaluru, which was originally allotted to 5th respondent by the respondent-BDA in terms of allotment letter dated 18.01.2019 and Possession Certificate dated 29.02.2019 vide Annexures-C and D. The respondent-BDA had also executed deed of sale on 19.02.2019 through respondent No.2 - Deputy Secretary in favour of 5th respondent after receiving the valuable sale consideration. Thus, respondent-BDA had conveyed valid title and interest in favour of 5th respondent. That the Khatha in respect of the aforesaid property was also registered in the name of 5th respondent. Thereafter, the property was assessed for -5- NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021 payment of property tax by BBMP. Khatha was also made in the name of 5th respondent in the records of BBMP. That the petitioner had obtained loan from the financial institution for the purpose of purchase of the aforesaid property and has now constructed a residential house thereon after obtaining valid sanction plan from the authorities.
3. That when things stood thus, the 4th respondent-police claiming to have registered a case in Cr.No.7/2021 on 22.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, upon a complaint filed by one Kantharaju against the officials of BDA, alleging their involvement in creating and fabricating the documents and allotting sites including the aforesaid site, have been causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that the 5th -6- NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021 respondent was the original allottee and the petitioner who is the subsequent bonafide purchaser of the property for the value cannot be disturbed or unsettled by the respondent-authorities apparently on irregularities allegedly committed by their own officials. Hence, petitioner seeks for grant of reliefs as stated above.
5. Per contra, learned counsel respondent-BDA submits that the FIR has been registered against certain officials of the BDA apparently on account of certain irregularities committed by them in allotting the sites including petition site. In the said FIR, 5th respondent has been arrayed as accused. He however fairly submits that no action is contemplated or taken by the BDA either to dispossess or take possession of the property from the petitioner. He submits that apprehension of the petitioner is therefore unfounded. He however submits that any such action would be in accordance with law. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard and perused the record.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021
7. There is no dispute of the fact that respondent- BDA originally allotted the petition site in favour of 5th respondent or executed a deed of sale, registered khata in favour of 5th respondent. There is also no dispute of the fact the 5th respondent in return has sold the site in favour of the petitioner who has constructed residential house thereon after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. Merely because enquiry has been initiated against some of the officials of the BDA and against the 5th respondent same would not either give any ground for the BDA either to interfere with the possession of the petitioner or to take any action against the 5th respondent or the petitioner who is claims to be bonafide purchaser without due process of law. Unless conclusion of the enquiry and without due process of law, action if any may have to be taken against the said officials.
8. Further, in view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent -BDA that action if any would be taken only in accordance with law, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:938 WP No. 8216 of 2021 respondent-authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner without due process of law.
9. It is made clear if after the enquiry that is initiated and on compliance with the due process of law if it is established that the allotment of site in favour of the 5th respondent was illegal, respondent-BDA would be at liberty to take such action as may be available under law.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5