[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Alka Rajshekar Sindhur vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
WP No. 27945 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 27945 OF 2024 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS.ALKA RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR,
W/O LATE RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE.
2. MRS.SUCHETHA,
W/O C M NAHUSH,
D/O LATE RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE.
Digitally 3. MR.SUMANTH RAJASHEKAR SINDHUR,
signed by S/O LATE RAJSHEKAR SINDHUR,
REKHA R AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
Location: OCCUPATION - BUSINESS.
High Court
of
Karnataka ALL ARE R/AT: SHUKRAVARPET,
WARD NO.13, SAVANNUR,
HAVERI - 581 118.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM.M., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARSHA P BANAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
WP No. 27945 of 2024
HC-KAR
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. MR.R.SRIRAMA
S/O LATE.N.RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT 162, YELETHOTADAPALYA
GOLLAHALLI, ANJANAPURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 108.
4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
RAJENDRANAGAR,
HAVERI - 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.S.ARUN., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.MURUGESH V.CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.A.C.CHETHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENQUIRY REPORT BEARING NO.28/2015 PRODUCED AT
ANNXURE-E OF THIS WRIT PETITION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE A SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SITE NO.90/B IN HSR,
SECTOR-3, BENGALURU MEASURING 40X60 AS PER
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
WP No. 27945 of 2024
HC-KAR
ALLOTMENT LETTER DTD 05.02.2007 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A OF THIS WP.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present Writ Petition has been filed against the
decision of the Enquiry Committee headed by Justice
Farooq, retired Judge of this Court. The said three member
Committee was constituted vide Judgment dated
25.08.2012 and 07.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.23475/2010
C/w. W.P.No.1032/2006 to enquiry into the
legality/illegality in allotment of G-Category sites.
2. Late Rajashekar Sindhur was a Member of
Legislative Assembly. He was resident of Shiggaon Village,
Savannur Hobli and Taluk, Haveri District. He was allotted
a site measuring 40 X 60 feet by the Bengaluru
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
Development Authority (for short 'the BDA'), the Authority
which has earned immense name and fame for acts of
commissions and omissions. The said allotment was made
at Hosur Sarjapur Road III Sector, Bengaluru on
22.09.2006.
3. The Allottee on affidavit stated before the
Committee that he had been resident of Karnataka for
more than 15 years and neither he nor his wife nor any
depending family member owns a site or house within the
jurisdiction of the BDA. It was further stated on affidavit
that neither he nor any of his family member had been
allotted a house or site by any of the Hosing Society or
Housing Board coming under the control of the State
Government. The Committee however found that on the
time of recording the statement of the Allottee on
18.10.2016, the Allottee had specifically admitted his
wife's name Smt.Alka and a site bearing No.9, LIG was
allotted in her favor by the Karnataka Housing Board.
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
4. The Allottee undertook to produce the certified
copy of the title deed in respect of the site allotted in favor
of his wife Smt.Alka.
5. Despite taking time thrice, the counsel who was
representing the Allottee did not produce any document
relating to Site No.9 allotted by the Karnataka Housing
Board in favor of his wife Smt.Alka.
6. Considering the provisions of Bangalore
Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984
(for short '1984 Rules'), particularly Rule 10, the
Committee held that as per Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 10, any
allotment in favor of the Allottee or his spouse would
disentitle the spouse or the husband to approach the
Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of a site
under 'General' Category, which is of preference conferred
by the Bangalore Development Authority on influential
people such as legislators, bureaucrats etc., and the
Committee found that the allotment of G-Category site in
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
favor of the Allottee was against the mandate of Sub-Rule
3 of Rule 10 of 1984 Rules, the Committee recommended
for cancellation of allotment of the G-Category site in favor
of the Allottee. The said recommendation of the
Committee is under challenge before this Court in the
present Writ Petition.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the allotment made by the BDA in favor
of Late Rajashekar Sindhur was before the allotment of a
site bearing No.9, LIG by the Karnataka Housing Board in
favor of his wife. It is submitted that Late Rajashekar
Sindhur was allotted a site by the BDA bearing Site
No.90/B measuring 40 X 60 feet in Hosur-Sarjapur Road,
Sector-III on 22.09.2006, whereas the housing board had
allotted a site to the wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur on
12.02.2007.
8. It is further submitted that the said site No.9,
LIG was purchased by the wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
and it was not an allotment on an application filed by the
wife of Late Rajashekar Sindhur.
9. It is further submitted that at the time of
allotment of site by BDA, neither the Allottee nor his
spouse nor any of his dependents had been allotted a site
by the Society/Authority under the control of the State
Government, the Committee's finding that the allotment of
site by BDA in favor of Late Rajashekar Sindhur was
against the provisions of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 10 of 1984
Rules was incorrect and the said recommendation is liable
to be set-aside.
10. The said submissions have been supported by
the BDA.
11. Mr.Murugesh V.Charati., fairly submits that as
on the date when the BDA allotted a site in favor of Late
Rajashekar Sindhur, there was no allotment of any of the
site in favor of his wife or any of his dependents. This
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
submission is made on instruction of the Deputy
Secretary-I, BDA who is present in the Court.
12. Mr.H.L.Pradeep., counsel appearing for the
Karnataka Housing Board also supports the contention of
the petitioner that the allotment/purchase of sites bearing
No.4, LIG and 9, LIG in favor of wife of Late Rajashekar
Sindhur, was after the allotment made by the BDA and
therefore, the allotment made in favor of Late Rajashekar
Sindhur would not be hit by the provisions of Sub-Rule 3
of Rule 10 of 1984 Rules.
13. After the allotment was cancelled by the BDA
on the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committee,
the site in question was allotted in favor of respondent
No.3. The allotment in favor of respondent No.3 of the site
in question was only on the basis of the recommendation
of the Committee for canceling the site allotted in favor of
Late Rajashekar Sindhur. Once we find that the
recommendation of the Committee is not sustainable, the
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
allotment of the site in favor of respondent No.3 also
cannot be sustained. Therefore, we restore the site in
favor of the legal heirs of Late Rajashekar Sindhur.
However, respondent No.3 as stated by the BDA shall be
allotted two sites, measuring 40 X 60 feet and 30 X 40
feet in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, wherever the
sites are available and not under litigation.
14. New sites in favor of respondent No.3 shall be
allotted within the period of 15 days in Nadaprabhu
Kempegowda Layout. Respondent No.3 is directed to
return to the BDA, the original allotment letter and other
documents which have been given to him in pursuance to
the allotment of site in question.
15. We however, observe that the allotment of site
under G-Category to the influential people was an
arbitrary and colorable exercise of the power in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a malafide
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14563-DB
HC-KAR
decision to confer privilege on the persons who do not
deserve such discretion.
16. We are informed that the Coordinate Bench of
this Court has already quashed the provisions for allotting
G-Category sites to the influential people. We therefore,
stop at the aforesaid observation.
17. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this Writ
Petition in terms of the order passed above.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
