'Unwanted Nuisance': Karnataka High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Costs On BDA For Selling Same Site Twice, Directs Recovery From Erring Officer
The Karnataka High Court has pulled up the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for creating an "unwanted nuisance" and exposing citizens to "unwanted litigation" after it mistakenly allotted and sold the same site to two different parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243]The Court directed the BDA to pay ₹1 lakh to the original allottees and recover the amount from the salary of the...
The Karnataka High Court has pulled up the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for creating an "unwanted nuisance" and exposing citizens to "unwanted litigation" after it mistakenly allotted and sold the same site to two different parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243]
The Court directed the BDA to pay ₹1 lakh to the original allottees and recover the amount from the salary of the officer responsible for the lapse, in accordance with law.
Justice R. Nataraj was hearing a petition filed by purchasers who had acquired Site No. 3504/C through a public auction conducted by the BDA in 2003. The Court noted that the very same property was subsequently renumbered as Site No. 2293 and allotted and conveyed by the BDA to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
During the hearing, the BDA submitted that it had realised its mistake and had instituted O.S. No. 8253/2025 seeking cancellation of the subsequent allotment and sale deeds executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It also informed the Court that an alternate site had been allotted to Respondent No. 6, who had purchased the property from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Recording the BDA's submissions, the Court held that the petitioners could pursue their remedy in the pending civil suit by getting themselves impleaded, if necessary.
However, considering the years of litigation and unwanted nuisance accrued to the original allottees in terms of further conveyance of the same plot by BDA to gullible third parties, the court noted as below:
“…this petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to work out the remedy in O.S.No.8253/2025 [ for cancellation of the allotment and the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4] filed by the respondent No.1 in pending consideration before the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. In addition, the respondent No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners for exposing the petitioners to an unwanted litigation. The respondent No.1 shall recover the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the salary of the officer concerned responsible for such unwanted litigation but in accordance with law…”
Case Title: V.S. Kanakaraj & Anr. vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11168 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243