WP/9552/2026 of SMT KOTTA KOTA RAVANAMMA Vs BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY on 16 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following prayer: "a.

Issue

a Writ of Mandamus, any Order(s)/Directions directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the non-consideration of her representation dated Nil bearing acknowledgment No.348512 dated 01.02.2019 by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of regularisation of her residential house into the Dr. Shivaramkaranth Layout bearing Site No.3 in Katha No.540/3 in Ramagondanahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru

HC-KAR

North Taluk, measuring East-West: 25 Ft., North- South: 44 Ft, totally measuring 1100 Sq. Ft. (Annexure-A) and to issue a Certificate of Regularisation within a period of 2 weeks."

2. Heard Smt. Anusha Nandish, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of residential house in Site No.3, Katha No.540/3 of Ramagondanahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East-West: 25 feet, North-South 44 feet, totally measuring 1100 square feet, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.09.2012. The petitioner has constructed a residential building in the schedule property in the year 2013 itself, she is the Kathedar of the schedule property and regularly paying the tax. In the meanwhile, the respondents-Bengaluru

HC-KAR

Development Authority has issued preliminary notification dated 30.12.2008 for acquisition of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. Hence, the petitioner submitted her representation on 01.02.2019 for regularisation of her residential house, but the Bengaluru Development Authority did not consider her request. The representation not having met its consideration, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5647 of 2025 (LA-BDA), disposed on 07.03.2025, which was identical to the case at hand, had passed the following order: “2. The learned counsel appearing for the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, BDA) would submit that the representation was submitted to the Committee, which is no longer in subsistence.

3. In that light, we deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the BDA identical to what was placed before the Committee on 25th August, 2021.

HC-KAR

In the event, the representation is submitted in the next two weeks, the BDA shall consider the same and pass necessary orders on the representation and communicate the decision taken within eight weeks, thereafter. Till such time, status-quo qua the property be maintained by the parties.”

Therefore, the learned counsel seeks that an identical direction be issued to Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner.

5. In the light of the afore-quoted order, we deem it appropriate to pass the following

O R D E R

i. Writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents-Bengaluru Development Authority, identical to what was placed before the respondents-Bengaluru Development Authority. ii. In the event, the petitioner submits a fresh representation, the respondents-Bengaluru Development Authority to consider the

HC-KAR

representation, within an outer limit of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. The respondents-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.: 29