Smt Savitha v. The Bangalore Development Authority

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:41994( WP(No.(8352(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010181282026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(7 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R.(NATARAJ(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(8352(OF(2026((BDA)(

BETWEEN:(( ( SMT.,SAVITHA, DAUGHTER,OF,SRI,KARALAIAH,,, WIFE,OF,SRI,H.,MURTHY,,, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS,,,

AT,PRESENT,RESIDING,AT,, TH NO.1256,,10 ,MAIN,ROAD,,, NDWEST,OF,CHORD,ROAD,,2 ,STAGE,, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,,, BANGALORE-560,086., …PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.,G.R.,VENKATESH,MURTHY,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( (

1., THE,BANGALORE,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED,BY,THE,COMMISSIONER,,,Digitally signedtiby KUMARA,PARK,(WEST),, HEMALATHA0J BANGALORE-560,020, Location: HIGH0COURT , OF 2., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, KARNATAKA REPRESENTED,BY,THE,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,, URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,DEPARTMENT,,, VIKAS,SOUDHA,,, DR.,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,, BANGALORE-560,001, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,UNNIKRISHNAN,M.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.1;, SRI.,ADITYA,DIWAKAR,,ADDITIONAL,GOVERNMENT,ADVOCATE,FOR, RESPONDENT,NO.2),

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE TITLE DEEDS AND PUT THE PETITIONER IN POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT SITE I.E., THE SITE NO.1192, OF KALIDASNAGAR SLUM, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, HOSKEREHALLI, BANGALORE OR TO IDENTIFY AND ALLOT AN ALTERNATE PLOT IN LIEU OF THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to execute a deed of conveyance and convey the Site No.1192 of Kalidasanagar Slum, Banashankari III Stage, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru and place her in possession of the aforesaid site.

2.

(i) The petitioner claims that she had put up a hut on a land belonging to Karnataka Kurubara Sangha at Srinivasanagara adjacent to Rajarajeshwari Vidya Mandir. The respondent No.1 in the year 1977 assured the petitioner that a residential site would be allotted in Sy.No.96 of Hosakerehalli, if the petitioner relocated from the land belonging to Karnataka Kurubara Sangha at Srinivasanagar. The petitioner's family agreed to the same and vacated the hut from the land

belonging to Karnataka Kurubara Sangha at Srinivasanagar. Petitioner claims that she and her family members were eagerly awaiting orders for allotment of a plot in her favour. Petitioner claims that as many as 118 similarly placed families were yet to receive an order of allotment and therefore, they formed an association namely, 'Kalidasa Badavara Balagada Sangha' to pursue the promise made by respondent No.1 and submitted a list of names of 118 residents who were yet to receive the allotment letter from the respondent No.1. Petitioner claims that her name also figured in the said list.

(ii) The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 informed her that it had taken a decision to allot the site bearing No.1192 at Kalidasanagar Slum, Banashankari III Stage, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru and directed her to pay a sum of Rs.1,680/- being the total cost of site. The petitioner remitted the said sum. However, the respondent No.1 did not complete the process of executing necessary documents in her favour. The petitioner made unending visits to the office of the respondent No.1. During one such visits, she came to know that the site bearing No.1192 at Kalidasanagar Slum,

Banashankari III Stage, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru, was allotted to one Mr. Madhu and a lease-cum-sale agreement was already executed in his favour. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation seeking intervention of the respondent No. 1 to conclude the allotment of the site bearing No.1192. Petitioner claims that her representation is not considered till date and therefore, she is before this Court seeking for a direction to respondent No.1 to execute a deed of conveyance and place her in possession of the aforesaid site.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated above contentions and submitted that when the respondent No.1 had indicated that a site bearing No.1192 at Kalidasanagar Slum, Banashankari III Stage, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru was allotted to her vide a letter of allotment dated

24.11.1992, it was bound to conclude the allotment by executing necessary deed of conveyance and also place the petitioner in possession. Since that is not done, a direction deserves to be issued to the respondent No.1 to conclude the process of allotment.

¶4The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the request of the petitioner would be considered and if the site in question is not allotted to anyone else, steps would be taken to conclude the transaction by executing necessary deeds in favour of the petitioner and also place her in possession.

¶5In view of the aforesaid submission, this petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the request of petitioner to execute a deed of conveyance, conveying Site No.1192 at Kalidasanagar Slum, Banashankari III Stage, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru, to the petitioner or to identify and allot an alternate plot in lieu of the aforesaid site to the petitioner. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63