Bangalore Development Authority to Pay Rs.1 Lakh For "Unwanted Litigation" Over Double Allotment of Site: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to pay Rs.1,00,000 to a couple whom it exposed to litigation after allotting and selling a site to them in a public auction, only to later renumber the same site and sell it to a different set of buyers. 

Justice R. Nataraj disposed of a writ petition filed by V.S. Kanakaraj and Vasantha Kokilam, directing that the compensation be recovered from the salary of the officer responsible for the lapse, in accordance with law.

The petitioners had purchased site No.3504/C at HAL, II Stage, in a public auction conducted by the BDA, with the sale confirmed by an auction sale confirmation deed dated 29.08.2003 and a possession certificate dated 23.03.2005. Their names were entered in the municipal records and they remained in possession of the site. When they visited the site in July 2008, they found it enclosed by a compound put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4, who, on enquiry, produced a possession certificate dated 23.03.2018 and claimed that the BDA had executed a sale deed conveying the same property to them. An encumbrance certificate obtained by the petitioners revealed that the BDA had renumbered their site as site No.2293 and subsequently conveyed it to respondent Nos.3 and 4 by a sale deed dated 13.03.2018, followed by a rectification deed and a further sale by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to respondent No.6.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the allotment letter dated 07.06.2017, the possession certificate dated 23.03.2018, and the consequent sale and rectification deeds, besides seeking a direction to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike not to issue any licence or khatha in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6 or permit construction on the disputed site.

When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the BDA and the State submitted that the Authority had since realised its mistake and filed a civil suit, O.S.No.8253/2025, before the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking cancellation of the allotment and the sale deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It was further submitted that the BDA had allotted an alternate site to respondent No.6, who had purchased the disputed site from respondent Nos.3 and 4, and that the writ petition may accordingly be disposed of in light of the suit and the alternate allotment.

The Court noted that the plaint in O.S.No.8253/2025 itself disclosed that the site conveyed to the petitioners had been re-numbered and sold a second time to respondent Nos.3 and 4, and that the BDA, having recognised this error, had taken steps to set aside the allotment and sale deeds and to compensate the subsequent purchaser with an alternate site. In these circumstances, the Court held it appropriate to direct the petitioners to pursue their remedy in the pending civil suit and, if necessary, seek impleadment therein.

"Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.1 has created an unwanted nuisance to the petitioners and exposed them to an unwanted litigation and also has misled gullible purchasers such as respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 be hauled up for a mistake committed."

The petition was accordingly disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in O.S.No.8253/2025, with a direction that the BDA pay Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioners for exposing them to unwanted litigation, to be recovered from the salary of the officer responsible for the lapse, in accordance with law.

Appearances: For the Petitioners: Sri Sachidanand H.S., Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Sri B S Karthikeyan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Smt. Chandini Singh, HCGP. For Respondent Nos.3 to 5: Sri K Prasad Hegde, Advocate. For Respondent No.7: Sri M C Nagashree, Advocate.

Case Title: V. S. Kanakaraj and Another vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Others, Writ Petition No. 11168 of 2019 

[Read Order]