D. GOVIND RAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed if a direction is issued to said authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation. Hence, this Court pass the following : HC-KAR (i)…
Judgment
(BY SRI SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE 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. (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41442 WP No. 29303 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 FOR ISSUANCE OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND OR INCENTIVE SITES EITHER IN THE SAME LAYOUT OR ANY OTHER LAYOUT OF EQUIVALENT VALUE OF THE SCHEDULE LAND OR ANY OTHER SCHEME AND RULES FOR ALLOTMENT OF SITES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 DATED 31.07.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider representation dated 31.07.2025 at Annexure-A.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by way of representation the petitioner has sought for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41442 WP No. 29303 of 2025 HC-KAR alternative site or incentive site, either in the same layout or any other layout, of equivalent value of the schedule land, in accordance with the applicable scheme and the rules governing allotment of sites under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been paid compensation in respect of land acquired and is therefore entitled to such allotment.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner’s representation will be considered in accordance with law, if a reasonable time is granted for such consideration.
Submission is recorded.
Operative part
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed if a direction is issued to said authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation. Hence, this Court pass the following : HC-KAR (i) (ii) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41442 WP No. 29303 of 2025 ORDER The Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation at Annexure-A
31.07.2025 accordance with law and the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and pass appropriate orders thereon within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
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.