SMT. DIVYASHREE B v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Writ Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- Bengaluru Development Authority submits that, reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered and necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.
Judgment
SMT. DIVYASHREE B. W/O. BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.42, 2ND CROSS K.E.B. ROAD, ANJANANAGARA MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 091. (BY SRI H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020. (BY SMT. HEMALATHA V., A.G.A., FOR R-1, & SRI SHIVAPRASAD M. SHANTHANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2 & R-3) …RESPONDENTS HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:36599-DB WP No. 2061 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010040962026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12-1-2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following prayers: "a. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12-1-2026 vide Annexure-H. b. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to collect the betterment charges to the Petitioner's site bearing No.45, V.P. Katha No.26, situated at Ganigarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976, in view of Annexure-F dated 28.05.2020." HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36599-DB WP No. 2061 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010040962026
2. Heard Sri H.T. Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Hemalatha V., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State, and Sri Shivaprasad M. Shanthanagoudar, learned standing counsel respondent Nos.2 3-Bengaluru Development Authority.
3. Learned counsel the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Site No.45, Assessment No.35, V.P. Katha No.26, situated at Ganigarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner purchased the said site from one Smt. Shamalamma through a registered Sale Deed and from then, she is in lawful possession and regularly paying revenue tax to Somashetty Grama Panchayat.
In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.2 and 3- Bengaluru Development Authority issued Notification for formation of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. Hence, the petitioner submitted her representation dated 12-1-2026 HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36599-DB WP No. 2061 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010040962026 vide Annexure-H to the respondents for regularisation of her Site. The representation not having met consideration, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- Bengaluru Development Authority submits that, reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered and necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions, we deem it appropriate to pass the following:
Operative part
O R D E R i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Bengaluru Development Authority (now Greater Bengaluru Authority) to consider representation submitted by petitioner dated 12-1-2026 (Annexure-H), forthwith. HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36599-DB WP No. 2061 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010040962026 iii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Bengaluru Development Authority shall also communicate the order that would be passed on the representation to the petitioner. iv. Till the consideration of the representation happens, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo qua the property of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 12 Jan 2026. The bench was M NAGAPRASANNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.