G. A. SUMANGALA v. THE COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M G S KAMAL
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:8708
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 s. 38
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent -BDA to implement the resolution as noted above, within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Judgment
(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.
K S N MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE N KRISHNASWAMY R/A NP.38, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, CHUNCHAGATTA BANGALORE - 560 058.
J. BABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O K JANARDHANA RAJU R/A NO.29, 12TH MAIN, PUTTENAHALLI - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8708 WP No. 11903 of 2020 KOTHNURU MAIN ROAD 7TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078 (BY SRI. GIRISHA N.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H. JAYANTH POOJARY ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 19.04.2021) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- DIRECT THE R-1 TO WITHDRAW THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 08.02.2019 AT ANNEXURE-G AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.02.2019 AT ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY CANCEL THE SALE DEED DATED 14.02.2019 EXECUTED BY THE R-1 IN FAVOUR OF THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE- H AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE POSSESSION OF SITE BEARING NO.547/B, KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE II BLOCK BANGALORE TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8708 WP No. 11903 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents after arguing the matter for some time submit in unison that in terms of the resolution dated 27.02.2023 passed by the respondent-BDA vide Subject No.65/2023, respondent -BDA has resolved that in terms of Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, the petitioner herein namely, Smt.G.A.Sumangala would be allotted an alternate site measuring 30 X 40 ft., within the J.P.Nagar 8th Phase Layout formed by the respondent-BDA subject to petitioner herein executing a release/relinquishment deed in respect of site bearing No.547B.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would, in the event of respondent -BDA allotting alternate site and confirming the number and identity of the site, do the requisite by executing the release deed in favour of the respondent -BDA.
3. In response, learned counsel for the respondent - BDA submits that necessary steps would be taken to identify and allot alternate site as per the resolution referred to above - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8708 WP No. 11903 of 2020 and requisites will be done including executing deeds of conveyance in favour of the petitioner.
Submission is taken on record.
Operative part
In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent -BDA to implement the resolution as noted above, within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Needless to clarify simultaneously on execution of necessary documents/deeds by BDA in favour of the petitioner, petitioner shall also execute deeds of relinquishment relinquishing the site bearing No.547B, in favour of the respondent -BDA. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — s. 38.
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.