The Commissioner v. J Ramesh

ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.

(ii) The respondents-BDA is directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of site bearing No.973 measuring 9 mtrs x 12 mtrs (30ft x 40ft), I Block, Sir.M.Vishwesharaiah Layout, Bengaluru, after collecting a sum of Rs.3,48,754/- from the petitioner and also execute a registered Sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the adjacent marginal land measuring 33.75 sq.mtrs., after collecting the requisite sum as per the Sub-Registrar/ guideline value from the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [Emphasis Supplied]

¶13A review petition was initially filed against the impugned judgment by the appellants / BDA being R.P.No.561/2022. By its order dated 21.09.2022, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the review

petition, as being devoid of merits. Simultaneously, a writ appeal was filed being Writ Appeal No.464/2022 by the appellants/BDA. However, on 26.03.2025 this writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal, which is the present appeal.

¶14In the meantime, since the appellants/BDA did not comply with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in 2nd Writ Petition the respondent was constrained to file a contempt petition being C.C.C.No.234 of 2022, which has been decided by this Court today.

¶15As can be seen above, the Impugned Order sets out, clear and unequivocal directions of the learned Single Judge to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the respondent for payment of a sum of Rs.3,48,754/. The direction has also been made, that the value of the adjacent marginal land measuring 33.75 square meters is also to be paid by the respondent. These directions were passed pursuant to an Affidavit dated 29.03.2021, filed by the appellants /

BDA, the relevant extract whereof is set out in paragraph

5.3 here in.

¶16The appellants/BDA has raised three contentions before this Court. Firstly, it is submitted that the sale deed could not be executed in view of the excess/marginal land. Secondly, that since 0there was no allotment letter issued to the respondent no sale deed could be executed. In addition, it is contended that the allotment could have been made only in terms of the seniority.

¶17So far as concerns the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/BDA that the respondent could only be allotted a site on account of his seniority cannot be sustained given the fact that both the petitioner and the said Sri. S. Srinivasan had on the same date, made an application and while Sri.S.Srinivasan was allotted the land and a registered Sale Deed was executed issued on

23.05.2012 in favour of Sri.S.Srinivasan, the respondent has had to wait for allotment of the site. Thus, there can

be no question of seniority when two contemporaneous applications are made.

¶18In addition, the learned Single Judge by the Impugned Order, had directed that the sale deed be executed after collecting a sum of Rs.3,48,875/- from the respondent as well for the marginal land at the guidance value as given by the Office of the Sub-Registrar. This order was passed on an Affidavit filed by the appellants/BDA dated 29.03.2021, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has already been allotted site No.973 and once the payment for the excess land is made, the sale deed shall be executed immediately. Thus, for the appellants/BDA to file an Affidavit controverting its earlier stand cannot be permitted.

¶19The Appellants/BDA has now placed on record an Affidavit dated 19.02.2026 sets up the value of the excess

/ marginal site at Rs.9,07,875/- being calculated at the rate of Rs.26,900/- per square metre.

¶20Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of directing the respondent to make payment of the sum of Rs.3,48,754/- along with the amount of Rs.9,07,875/- and the payment for the alternate site as set out in the Affidavit being Rs.40,000/- within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Pursuant to such payment being made, the appellants/BDA shall take appropriate steps to register the Sale Deed within a period of six weeks from the date the payment is made.

¶21All pending applications stand closed. No order as to costs.

PN/JJ

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA Location: High Court of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:23192-DB( WA(No.(889(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( PRESENT( R HON'BLE(MRS.(JUSTICE(ANU(SIVARAMAN( AND(( HON'BLE(MS.(JUSTICE(TARA(VITASTA(GANJU( WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(889(OF(2025((LA-BDA)( BETWEEN:(( ( 1., THE,COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,, T.,CHOWDAIAH,ROAD,,KUMARA,PARK,WEST,, BENGALURU-560,020., , 2., THE,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER, (GIDADA,KONENAHALLI,INCHARGE), BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,, T.,CHOWDAIAH,ROAD,,KUMARA,PARK,WEST,, BENGALURU-560,020., …APPELLANTS, (BY,SRI.,VACHAN,B.,,ADVOCATE), AND:( ( J.,RAMESH, S/O.,JAYARAMAN,, C/O.,S.,R.,SUBBARAYULU,, NO.,6,,6TH,MAIN,,SAMPIGE,LAYOUT,, VIJAYANAGARA,NORTH,, BENGALURU-560,079., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,RAVINDRANATH,A.,ADVOCATE), THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 4180/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 29.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4180/2017 (LA-BDA) (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'). 2. By the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the appellants/Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA') to execute registered sale deed for Site No.973, I Block, Sir.M.Vishwesharaiah Layout, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Site No.973') after receipt of a sum of Rs.3,48,754/- and also register a sale deed for the adjacent 33.75 sq. ft. of land as per the guidance value of the Sub-Registrar. 3. Since the directions were not complied with, the complainant has filed a Contempt of Court Case being CCC No.234/2022. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants / BDA and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had been granted a site bearing No.973, I Block, Sri. M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bengaluru. Since this site was not allocated and the Sale Deed was not executed, W.P.Nos.4343-4344/2009(LA-BDA)1 (hereinafter referred 1 J.Ramesh & Another vs. The Commissioner, BDA & Another to as the '1st Writ Petition') was filed by the respondent along with one Sri. S. Srinivasan. 5.1 The learned Single Judge of this Court, by its Order dated 12.03.2009, directed the BDA to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as the said Sri. S. Srinivasan, within three months. Since this was not undertaken by the BDA, a second writ petition was filed being W.P.No.4180/20172 (hereinafter referred to as the '2nd Writ Petition'). 5.2 It was also the contention of the respondent/ complainant that during this period, although the said Sri.S. Srinivasan was allocated a site as well as the Sale Deed was executed in his favour on 23.05.2012, so far as the respondent was concerned, the compliance was not done. 5.3 During the proceedings before the learned Single Judge in 2nd Writ Petition, an affidavit was filed by 2 J.Ramesh vs. The Commissioner, BDA & Another appellants/ BDA dated 29.03.2021, wherein the BDA had stated that the allotted site No.973 to the respondent was marginally in excess by 33.75 square meters and thus, the value of the cited land would be required to be paid. Paragraph 4 of this affidavit is set out as below:- "4. It is submitted that authority already allotted the site No.973 to the petitioner and subject to payment of market value towards marginal sital area in lieu of his revenue site acquired by the authority and if the petitioner pay the cost for sital value plus excess measurement area cost at the correct market value demanded by the authority, authority will execute the sal