Smt Mythily Raghuram v. Bangalore Development Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22546 OF 2026 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:

SMT. MYTHILY RAGHURAM W/O. P.T. RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.267, SPURTHI, 8TH ROAD, DEFENCE LAYOUT, VRV: VIDYARANYAPURA POST OFFICE, BENGALURU-560097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN J., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020

¶2SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020

¶3DEPUTY SECRETARY -I BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXPEDITIOUSLY CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM AND ALLOT AN ALTERNATE SITE IN THE SAME LAYOUT, PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION DATED 14.12.2002 (ANNEXURE-D) ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S LATE MOTHER, AND IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

07.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-A), BY FIXING THE VALUE OF THE ALTERNATE SITE AT THE PREVAILING RATE AS ON THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, I.E.,

14.12.2002, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

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 respondents to expeditiously consider her claim and allot an alternate site in the same layout by considering the representation dated 14.12.2002 submitted by her mother and representation dated 07.07.2025 submitted by her and also fix the value of the alternate site at rates prevalent as on the date of the application i.e., 14.12.2002.

¶2The petitioner contends that her mother had purchased a revenue site at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk, in terms of a sale deed dated

01.03.1996. She contends that the land where the site was formed was acquired by the State Government for formation of 'Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout' in terms of a preliminary notification dated 14.12.2001 and a final notification dated

31.10.2002. Following the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Junjamma and others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others [ILR 2005 KAR 608], the mother of the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No.1 on

14.12.2002 registering herself for allotment of an alternate site. The petitioner contends that an application in the prescribed form for allotment of alternate site was also filed on the said day. The petitioner contends that her mother expired on 27.12.2005 and thereafter, she repeatedly followed the issue up with the respondents which did not evoke any response from them. She therefore submitted an application on 27.12.2014 requesting the respondent No.1 for allotment of an alternate site. The petitioner contends that she thereafter filed another representation dated 07.07.2025 requesting for allotment of an alternate site. The petitioner

contends that the said representation is not considered and therefore, she is before this Court.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions.

¶4The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application filed by the mother of the petitioner would be considered and the representation filed by the petitioner on

07.07.2025 would also be considered and if the petitioner is entitled for allotment of alternate site, the same would be done.

¶5The entitlement of the petitioner in view of the judgment of this Court in Junjamma's case, referred supra, is not in dispute. Equally, so is the fact that as directed by this Court in Junjamma's case, the mother of petitioner had registered herself with the respondent No.1 and filed an application in the prescribed form on 14.12.2002. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek for a direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by her mother on

14.12.2002 and the representation filed by her on 07.07.2025.

As regards the price of allotment, this Court has consistently held that the allotment price shall be at the rates when an application seeking allotment of an alternate site is filed, which in the present case was on 14.12.2002.

¶6In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application filed by the mother of the petitioner dated

14.12.2002 and the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 07.07.2025. If the petitioner is entitled to allotment of an alternate site, the respondents shall take a decision on the application dated

14.12.2002 and pass appropriate orders. It is needless to mention that while determining the price of allotment of the alternate site, the respondents shall take into account the allotment rates as on the date of the application i.e.,

14.12.2002 and act in accordance with law.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72