(BY SRI SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) v. GUTTAHALLI

(BY SRI SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39834 WP No. 12729 of 2025 HC-KAR AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38D OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 DATED 29/03/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A; DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT NOT TO DISTURB THE POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE ON 29/03/2025 BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39834 WP No. 12729 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking for the following relief: “1. Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the Representation issued Respondent No.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section.38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 dated 29-03-2025 as per Annexure-‘A’;

2. Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent not to disturb the possession of the Petitioner from the schedule property the consideration of Representation made on 29-03-2025 by the Petitioner as per Annexure-‘A’.

3. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in occupation and enjoyment of the schedule site, which forms part of a larger extent bearing *Sy.No.81/5 situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba *Corrected vide Court Order dated 28.11.2025 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39834 WP No. 12729 of 2025 HC-KAR Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, for more than 30 years. The petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No.2–BDA, seeking regularization of such occupation under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA Act’ for short).

It is contended that, despite submitting of the representation in March, 2025 (Annexure-A), respondents have not yet considered or acted upon it.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner’s representation would be duly considered in accordance with law, if a reasonable time is granted.

The submission is recorded.

In view of the above submission, the grievance would stand redressed if appropriate directions are issued - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39834 WP No. 12729 of 2025 HC-KAR to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation expeditiously.

Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-A) accordance with law, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It further ordered that, until consideration and decision, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner or disturb his possession of the schedule property.

With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- _________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1