66-year-old’s 40-year fight for sale deed continues as BDA ignores court order

The BDA has failed to comply with a high court order to return the original sale deed to a 66-year-old Banashankari resident.

The deed was submitted for the purpose of “reconveyance,” but the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has neither returned the original nor issued a certified copy as a substitute, as directed by the court.

Case background

The case pertains to D N Parimala, who is married to Mahadeva Bhat and resides in Banashankari 1st Stage.

In 1980, the family purchased a 30x40 square foot plot in Gavipura near Srinagar bus stand. To comply with the regulations back then, they submitted an application to the BDA for a reconveyance deed, along with the copy of the original sale deed.

Though the BDA acknowledged the sale deed’s receipt by issuing confirmation, it did not respond to requests the family made for return of the original deed.

Petition in HC

In 2021, Parimala filed a writ petition in the high court because the family was unable to build a house on the property. To apply for plan approval, a copy of the sale deed was needed.

Parimala presented evidence of owning the property, including land records, an encumbrance certificate, tax receipts, and letters from the BDA confirming the receipt of the sale deed.

While advocate M A Venugopal represented the petitioner, the BDA’s counsel requested time to find the document and give it to the petitioner.

But during the next hearing, the BDA said they couldn’t find the document.

In July last year, the high court mandated the BDA to either supply a document or statement about the missing or destroyed initial sale deed and to give a declaration that a duplicate copy of the sale deed may be used as a replacement in the interest of justice and equity.

The court acknowledged that the proof given by the petitioner established clearly that no disputes prevailed regarding possession of the property.

BDA has to pay up: Court

The court ordered the BDA to pay the petitioner Rs 5 lakh as compensation for their inability to use the property for 40 years and gave 12 weeks to comply with the order. But the BDA is yet to do so.

Advocate Venugopal said he didn’t send a notice to the BDA because their lawyer already knew about the judgment from the hearing that he was part of.

“The family had spent considerable money to safeguard their property from encroachers. We are awaiting a response from the BDA,” he said.

BDA Commissioner G Kumar Naik did not respond to calls.