Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
WP No. 22086 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 22086 OF 2022 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.K. RAMESH
S/O LATE K. BALACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.169,
7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI
BENGALURU-560 050.
2. SRI. MUKUNDA RAO,
S/O NARASOJI RAO,
AGED 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.304,
A-2 BLOCK, RIJEO APARTMENTS,
AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGLAURU-560 017.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N
3. SMT. NAGARATHNA
Location: High
Court of W/O G.V. RAMAKRISHNA
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.585
9TH 'C' MAIN ROAD,
8TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
4. SMT. SOWBHAGYA
W/O SRI. DEEPAK
AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDING NO.408
1ST CROSS, IDEAL HOMES,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
WP No. 22086 of 2022
R.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 098.
5. SMT. H.S. SAVITHRI
W/O G. SRIKAMAIAH,
AGED 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.436,
16TH A MAIN ROAD,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
6. SRI. SRIHARI
S/O SMT. RAMAMANI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.116, 2ND BLOCK,
THYAGARAJNAGAR
BENGALURU-560028.
7. SMT. SHYLA S PAL
W/O UMESH V NAIK
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.53,
14TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
8. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O K. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.94, 3RD CROSS,
RAMESH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 037.
9. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35
T C M RAYAN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 053.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
WP No. 22086 of 2022
10. SRI. G. NARASIMHAMURTHY
W/O LATE GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.47/21
MUNEGOWDA GARDENS
NEELASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560 047
11. SMT. B.M. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O VENKATACHALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GEJJAADAHALLY
SHIVANAPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 162.
12. SMT. PUSHPALATHA
W/O G.S. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GEJJAGADAHALLY
SHIVANAPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 162.
13. SMT. S.V. JAMUNA
W/O G. LAXMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GEJJAGADAHALLY
SHIVANAPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 162.
14. SMT. BYRAMMA
W/O L. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GEJJAGADAHALLY
SHIVANAPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 162.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
WP No. 22086 of 2022
15. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.606
VIDYANIKETHANA ROAD,
MUDDANAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 091.
16. SMT. RAHNAMMA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.606
VIDYANIKETHANA ROAD,
MUDDANAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 091.
17. SMT. N. VIJYALAKSHMI
W/O K.N. SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.518
41ST CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 082
18. SMT. N. VIJAYAMMA
W/O NARAYANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2235
12TH MAIN ROAD,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 078.
19. SRI. PAVAN
S/O B.N GOPINATH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.37,
1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS,
5TH 'C' MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURA,
BENGALURU-560 086.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
WP No. 22086 of 2022
20. SMT. RADHA RAO
W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.313,
4TH MAIN ROAD,
MOUNT JOY EXTENSION,
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 090
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MAMATA GURURAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
K.P. WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
K.P. WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
4. RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPU PRATISTANA ®
KUPPALLI VILLAGE,
THIRTHAHALLY TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. KADIDAL PRAKASH
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
WP No. 22086 of 2022
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3
VIDE ORDER DATED 16.1.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS DATED 3.12.2009, 7.3.2014, 16.2.2017,
11.4.2022 AND 18.4.2022, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURES-F, G, H, J AND K RESPECTIVELY IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONERS CONCERNED AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME
WITHIN TIME BOUND MANNER TO BE FIXED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
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
The petitioners are before this Court claiming to be the
purchasers of sites formed in land bearing Sy.Nos.28/3, 28/4,
28/5 and 28/10 (New Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54 and 57 respectively) of
Gidadakonenahalli, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk,
which was acquired by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BDA for
further extension of Sir. M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout.
Representations as per Annexures - F, G, H, J and K were
submitted by the petitioners seeking allotment of sites, non-
consideration of which, has constrained the petitioners to
approach this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of this Court passed in Junjamma and others vs.
The Bangalore Development Authority and others [ILR
2005 KAR 608] and the subsequent decision passed pursuant
thereon and seeks for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and
3 - BDA to consider the representations.
3. In response, Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BDA submits that even in terms of
the judgment passed by this Court in Junjamma and others,
referred supra, the petitioners were required to have registered
themselves as applicants within a period of three months from
the date of the said judgment. Further, he submits that in
terms of the instructions issued by the State Government, any
application filed subsequent to the year 2014 cannot be
accepted. Thus, he submits that representations at this belated
stage cannot be considered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners however insists
that liberty be reserved to the petitioners to make
representations both to respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BDA as well
as to respondent No.1 - State Government with a direction to
NC: 2025:KHC:1618
consider the same in view of the fact that the petitioners are in
large numbers and they had purchased the sites prior to the
acquisition and that mere ignorance of the petitioners should
not be a ground to deprive them of their entitlement.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is taken on record.
6. The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the
petitioners either to make representations or register
themselves as applicants as required. In that event,
respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BDA as well as respondent No.1 -
State Government shall take into consideration the fact that the
petitioners claimed to have purchased the sites prior to the
acquisition and consider the same in accordance with law and
pass orders one way or the other as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
PMR
