MR SAJJAD AEJAZ KHAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Till such time, the respondents shall not precipitate the matter qua the possession of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19335 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. MR SAJJAD AEJAZ KHAN S/O LATE MR. A.A. KHAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R AT NO.3/2, HUB TOWN PRIME 202, LEVEL 3, AM ROAD ULOOR ROAD BENGLAURU - 560 042 (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDALAH ROAD KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR PARK WEST BENGLAURU - 560 020 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27590 WP No. 19335 of 2025 HC-KAR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.3, NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY R.T. NAGAR, BENGLAURU - 560 032 (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2-BDA TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS/ REPRESENTATION DATED 10.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 38D OF THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 FOR REGULARIZATION OF HOUSE SITE WITH BUILDINGS THROUGH RE-CONVEYANCE IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE- H.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO ISSUE INTERIM DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 AND THEIR OFFICIALS NOT TO DEMOLISH AND DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate Writ or Order / s directing the respondent No.2 – BDA to consider the applications / representation dated 10.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner under Section 38D of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 for regularization of house site with buildings in respect of schedule through re-conveyance - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27590 WP No. 19335 of 2025 HC-KAR property vide Annexure – H, in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Issue such other Writ, direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem circumstances of this case to meet the ends of justice and equity.” to grant
2. Heard Sri Somashekara K.M., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vasantha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
3. The petitioner is said to have purchased subject property from the hands of one Kasthuri C. Shetty, in terms of the registered sale deed dated 08.07.2002. In terms of the said sale, all entries stand in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submits an application before respondent No.2 – Bengaluru Development Authority under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 seeking regularization of the house site and the building. The said application is not met its consideration and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27590 WP No. 19335 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. In light of the application submitted on
10.06.2025, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the application dated 10.06.2025 submitted under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Till such time, the respondents shall not precipitate the matter qua the possession of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
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.