Same BDA Site, Two Owners: Karnataka HC Lets the 2016 Deed Stand, Orders a Refund

In September 2000, a Central Government employee, by his own account, was allotted a BDA site in RMV 2nd Stage Further Extension, in Bhoopasandra Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. It was site No. 72. Sixteen years later, after the layout was revised and renumbered, the same plot, now site No. 68, was allotted to someone else and sold to them by a registered deed in April 2016. The first allottee challenged it in the High Court in 2018 and won before a Single Judge. On October 1, 2026, a Division Bench reversed that win, and left him with a refund.

The judgment, in Smt. Mohini v. Bengaluru Development Authority, Writ Appeal No. 1308 of 2023, was written by Justice Venkatesh Naik T, with Justice Anu Sivaraman concurring. For anyone who holds a BDA allotment, or is buying a BDA site from an earlier allottee, it sets out how quickly the clock runs once a rival sale deed is registered.

The short answer. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's September 22, 2023 order, which had quashed the 2016 allotment and sale deed. It held that the first allottee's 2022 prayer to cancel the deed was barred by the three-year limit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, that title disputes between private parties need a civil suit rather than a writ, and that once a sale deed is registered, "the power to cancel the deed vests with the Court and cannot be exercised by the vendor." It directed the BDA to return the sale consideration he had paid, with 12 percent interest a year. The trade-off: the first allottee gets his money back with interest, but not the site he was allotted in 2000.

How did two people end up with the same BDA site?

According to the judgment, the second set of sites traced back to old land at Kethamaranahalli Village, Rajaji Nagar: site No. 30/A, measuring 8,100 square feet, notified by the City Improvement Trust Board around 1945 and 1946 for an industrial area that was never formed. The original owner, C. Anantha Narayana, obtained a decree and pursued a writ over the failure to re-convey the land. A BDA Board resolution of June 22, 2011 provided for retaining the land and allotting alternative sites.

Under that arrangement, he was given an allotment letter dated February 6, 2016 for site No. 68 in RMV 2nd Stage Further Extension, executed a relinquishment deed for site No. 30/A in April 2016, and took a sale deed and possession of site No. 68 the same month. He was also allotted site No. 69. Meanwhile, the layout had been revised by Board Resolution No. 256/2011, which renumbered the plots. The first allottee said site No. 68 was the old site No. 72 that he had been allotted in 2000. Anantha Narayana's widow, Smt. Mohini, brought the appeal after his death.

Why did the first allottee lose the site?

Because of timing and forum. The court held that he knew of the sale deed in April 2016, so the three-year limitation period under Article 59 expired in April 2019, and his amendment seeking cancellation, filed on July 19, 2022, was time-barred. It also held that disputes over title between private parties require a civil suit, quoting the Supreme Court's Roshina decision that "a regular suit is the appropriate remedy."

The court added that once a sale deed is registered, the vendor, here the BDA, cannot cancel it unilaterally. Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, only a court can cancel a registered instrument. And it held that Rule 11-A of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, on alternative sites, did not apply, because the second allottee was not an "allottee" under the Rules: his sites were given in discharge of the BDA's compensation obligation under the Board resolution and court orders.

What else was going on with the land?

The land under the layout had its own history of litigation, according to the judgment. Writ petitions by landowners were dismissed in 2011 and that dismissal was upheld on appeal on September 5, 2019, while a civil suit filed in 2000 was pending. On May 31, 2012, the High Court said the BDA should not "precipitate any further action" on the subject land. Four asbestos sheds on the land were cleared and taken into BDA custody, and the layout was revised by Board Resolution No. 256/2011, which renumbered the site.

For a buyer, these are the kinds of facts that may not appear on an allotment letter but that can decide what happens to a site. A layout under litigation, an interim order restraining further action, and a revision that renumbers plots are all reasons to dig deeper before relying on a site number.

What did the first allottee get instead?

A refund. The court held that since he had paid the sale consideration, he was entitled to have it returned, and directed the BDA to pay it back with interest at 12 percent a year. The judgment does not state the amount paid, the date from which interest runs or a time limit for payment. Paragraph 41 of the judgment reserves liberty to him to pursue a civil suit, though that liberty is not repeated in the operative order. There was no order as to costs.

The judgment also notes internal inconsistencies in the dates in the records, including the sale deed's reference to an allotment letter dated 2017 and some dates given differently in different paragraphs. Records with such inconsistencies are exactly what a buyer of a BDA site should ask a lawyer to reconcile before paying.

What does this mean for someone buying a BDA site from an earlier allottee?

That an allotment letter, even an old one, is not the end of the inquiry. Layouts can be revised and sites renumbered, as happened here under Resolution No. 256/2011. A buyer should match the site's current number, old number, dimensions and survey numbers against BDA records, and check whether any other allotment or sale deed exists for the same plot. The judgment records that the allotment letter described the site as 40 by 60 feet, while a later corrected dimension report gave 2,460 square feet, another detail to reconcile.

PropNewz reported on another Bengaluru site dispute in our report on the BSNL house building society case, and explained the khata transfer that follows a purchase in our guide to e-khata and khata transfer.

How fast does a site holder need to act?

Fast. In this case the court counted three years from when the first allottee knew of the rival sale deed. By the time he sought cancellation, more than six years had passed since April 2016. He had filed his writ in 2018, but the specific prayer to cancel the deed came later, and it was that prayer the court held barred.

There is a second lesson in the procedural history. The Single Judge had found that the 2016 allotment violated Rules 10 and 11-A of the BDA allotment rules, and had quashed it along with the sale deed. The Division Bench held that finding could not be sustained, because the second allottee's sites were compensation rather than an allotment under the Rules. A win at the first stage was reversed on appeal about three years later, which is why a site holder should plan for the full length of litigation rather than the first order.

What should a Bengaluru BDA site holder or buyer check?

Treat the BDA's records and the sub-registrar's records as two separate things to verify, and move quickly if they conflict.

1. Get a certified copy of your allotment letter and possession certificate, and note old and new site numbers.
2. Check whether the layout has been revised and whether your site was renumbered.
3. Run an encumbrance check on the site to see whether any other sale deed is registered.
4. Match dimensions and survey numbers across the allotment letter, deed and BDA records.
5. If you find a rival deed, note the date you learned of it, since limitation may run from then.
6. Take legal advice early on whether a civil suit or another remedy is the right route.
7. Keep receipts for every payment to the BDA, since a refund may depend on them.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka High Court decide in Smt. Mohini v. BDA?

On October 1, 2026, a Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside a Single Judge order that had quashed a 2016 BDA allotment and sale deed for site No. 68 in RMV 2nd Stage Further Extension. It directed the BDA to refund the first allottee's sale consideration with 12 percent interest a year.

Why was the first allottee's challenge rejected?

The court held he knew of the sale deed in April 2016, so the three-year limit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act expired in April 2019, and his 2022 prayer to cancel the deed was barred. It also held that title disputes between private parties need a civil suit.

Can the BDA cancel a sale deed it has registered?

Not unilaterally, according to the court. It held that once a sale deed is registered, the power to cancel it vests with the court and cannot be exercised by the vendor, relying on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which reserves cancellation of registered instruments to courts.

What should someone buying a BDA site check?

Match the site's current and old numbers, dimensions and survey numbers against BDA records, check whether the layout was revised, run an encumbrance check for any rival sale deed, keep payment receipts, and take legal advice quickly if a conflict appears, since limitation can run from when you learn of it.

Last updated 2026-11-06. PropNewz Team.