ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 30.09.2014 issued by the respondent-BBMP, produced at Annexure-A. Under the impugned endorsement, the BBMP has taken a stand that it has not constructed Ambedkar Bhavan in Site No.422, and therefore, there is no occasion to consider petitioner's request for allotment of an alternate site. The endorsement also makes reference to earlier similar endorsements dated 26.07.2014 and 08.09.2014. 2. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is claiming title over the schedule property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1989 executed in favour of her husband by the Kavika Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited. Upon the demise of her husband, the petitioner, being a Class-I legal heir, asserts that she has inherited the said property. Consequent to her husband’s death, the petitioner made an application for change of katha. In response, BBMP issued an endorsement stating that Site No.422 falls within a notified slum area and therefore, vests with the Slum Board. Claiming that Ambedkar Bhavan was constructed on Site No.422 by the BBMP without authority, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation requesting allotment of an alternate site. In W.P.No.9375/2010, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the BBMP to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of an alternate site in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a fresh representation. As no action was taken within the stipulated period, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in CCC No.928/2014. In response to the contempt notice, the BBMP appeared before the contempt court on 12.09.2014 and gave an undertaking that an exchange deed would be executed at its own cost. The petitioner contends that despite such undertaking, due to a subsequent change in the Bench, the BBMP resiled from its assurance, and the contempt petition came to be withdrawn based on an oral assurance given by the Corporation. Subsequently, BBMP issued the impugned endorsement asserting that Ambedkar Bhavan was constructed on Site No.490 and not Site No.422, and hence, petitioner’s request for alternate site allotment could not be considered. 3. The respondent-BBMP has filed its statement of objections, strongly refuting the claims made by the petitioner. Subsequently, BBMP issued the impugned endorsement asserting that Ambedkar Bhavan was constructed on Site No.490 and not Site No.422, and hence, petitioner’s request for alternate site allotment could not be considered. 3. The respondent-BBMP has filed its statement of objections, strongly refuting the claims made by the petitioner. It contends that in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9375/2010, petitioner's representation was considered and rejected, and thus, initiation of contempt proceedings was unwarranted. The respondent further states that, in view of the contempt notice, the Deputy Commissioner had forwarded the file on 18.09.2014 to the Commissioner for approval to execute the exchange deed. However, upon scrutiny and legal opinion obtained from the Head of the Legal Cell, it was found that Ambedkar Bhavan was in fact constructed on Site No.490 and not Site No.422. 4. The BBMP has also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by asserting that Site No.422, said to be part of Survey No.16, could not be properly identified, and there existed serious factual disputes as to the boundaries and identity of the site. These, according to BBMP, are issues that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the BBMP at length and has perused the material on record. 6. On careful examination of the records, it emerges that during the earlier round of litigation, when contempt proceedings were initiated, the BBMP sought to resolve the dispute amicably by giving an undertaking before the contempt court on 12.09.2014. It had agreed to allot an alternate site and further undertook to execute an exchange deed at its own cost. The said undertaking is of material significance. Therefore, for proper appreciation, the order dated 12.09.2014 is extracted herein below: "Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on 22.9.2014 Exchange Deed would be executed by the BBMP, at its costs. Therefore, list this matter on 23.9.2014. Complainant shall approach the respondent and she would also be present at the time of execution of Exchange Deed and appear before the Sub Registrar to execute the registered Exchange Deed." 7. Petitioner has also produced the proceedings of the BBMP dated 16.03.2013 bearing No.11 (394))/2012-13. Therefore, list this matter on 23.9.2014. Complainant shall approach the respondent and she would also be present at the time of execution of Exchange Deed and appear before the Sub Registrar to execute the registered Exchange Deed." 7. Petitioner has also produced the proceedings of the BBMP dated 16.03.2013 bearing No.11 (394))/2012-13. The relevant portion of the proceedings is extracted which reads as under; 8. Upon examining the material placed on record, including the relevant extracts referred to in the earlier paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-BBMP, at one stage during the earlier round of litigation, did not dispute the petitioner’s contention that Ambedkar Bhavan was constructed on Site No.422. In fact, the undertaking given before the Contempt Court on 12.09.2014 suggests that the BBMP was willing to resolve the dispute by executing an exchange deed in favour of the petitioner at its own cost, thereby implicitly acknowledging the petitioner’s grievance. 9. However, in the present proceedings, the respondent-BBMP has taken a completely different stand. It now asserts that Ambedkar Bhavan has been constructed not on Site No.422, but on Site No.490. In support of this contention, the respondent has stated that the Karnataka Slum Development Board (KSDB) had formed a layout in the area and that Site No.490 was specifically identified and reserved in the enumeration list under the name of "Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Sangha." According to the respondent, Site No.490 measuring 26 feet in East– West direction and 17 feet in North-South direction was a vacant plot under the control of the Karnataka Slum Development Board (KSDB), and since the BBMP intended to utilise public funds for the construction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan, a formal resolution was passed to proceed with construction on that site. On this basis, the respondent has consistently denied the petitioner’s allegation that Ambedkar Bhavan was constructed on Site No.422. 10. However, the petitioner, in order to rebut the respondent’s claim, has produced material evidence in the form of a communication issued by the Karnataka Slum Development Board. Along with a memo dated 17.06.2025, the petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 14.09.2011 issued by the Executive Engineer, KSDB. This Court finds it appropriate to extract the contents of the said official communication, as it has a direct bearing on the core issue in dispute. The contents of the letter are extracted below: (Emphasis supplied) 11. Along with a memo dated 17.06.2025, the petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 14.09.2011 issued by the Executive Engineer, KSDB. This Court finds it appropriate to extract the contents of the said official communication, as it has a direct bearing on the core issue in dispute. The contents of the letter are extracted below: (Emphasis supplied) 11. On a careful reading of the communication dated 14.09.2011 issued by the Karnataka Slum Development Board, as extracted above, this Court finds that the Slum Board has unequivocally clarified that neither site No.422 nor site No.490 forms part of the slum area notified or developed by it. The Board has categorically stated that the layout formed by it does not include the two sites in question. This clarification goes to the root of the present dispute and directly contradicts the respondent-BBMP’s assertion that these sites fall within the jurisdiction of the Slum Board, or were ever subject to any transfer or assignment by the Board in favour of the BBMP. 12. In light of the significant and material admissions contained in the Slum Board’s communication, this Court is constrained to record its strong disapproval of the manner in which the respondent-BBMP has conducted itself in these proceedings. The BBMP, a statutory municipal body tasked with upholding public interest and safeguarding legal entitlements of citizens, has in the present case acted in a wholly arbitrary, high-handed, and irresponsible manner. The property in question i.e., Site No.422 was lawfully acquired by the petitioner’s husband under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1989. Yet, without following due process or exercising any caution, the BBMP appears to have unilaterally taken possession of the site and constructed a public building, namely, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan, thereby depriving the petitioner of her lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. 13. The materials placed on record further indicate that the petitioner’s husband was the absolute owner of site No.422 and that the petitioner, as his Class-I legal heir, is entitled to succeed to the said property. It is deeply concerning that the issue surrounding the identity and status of the site has remained unresolved for over a decade. Despite having a fully equipped technical wing comprising competent engineers and surveyors, the respondent has not conducted any official survey or demarcation to verify whether the Ambedkar Bhavan has been constructed on site No.422 or site No.490. It is deeply concerning that the issue surrounding the identity and status of the site has remained unresolved for over a decade. Despite having a fully equipped technical wing comprising competent engineers and surveyors, the respondent has not conducted any official survey or demarcation to verify whether the Ambedkar Bhavan has been constructed on site No.422 or site No.490. The continued inaction in this regard is not only inexcusable but also indicative of a larger institutional apathy. Now that the Slum Board has issued a formal clarification that neither site belongs to it, this Court is more than satisfied that both site Nos.422 and 490 are in fact private properties, and BBMP had no lawful authority to enter or alter them. 14. It is further relevant to note that during the earlier round of litigation, when the petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings, the respondent-BBMP, perhaps realising the gravity of its unauthorised actions, voluntarily came forward and undertook to resolve the matter by offering an alternate site and executing an exchange deed at its own cost. This conduct amounted to an implied acknowledgment of its encroachment and wrongful use of the petitioner’s private property. However, upon withdrawal of the contempt proceedings reportedly on the basis of oral assurances, the BBMP has taken an entirely contradictory and untenable stand in the present proceedings. The issuance of the impugned endorsement, asserting that Ambedkar Bhavan is built on site No.490 without furnishing any supporting evidence, is both arbitrary and unjustified. Significantly, the respondent has failed to place on record any resolution, technical drawing, site plan, or financial sanction documents evidencing investment of public funds for construction on site No.490. In the absence of such material, this Court is compelled to draw an adverse inference against the respondent for deliberate suppression of documents and withholding of crucial documents over the past ten years. 15. What is even more disconcerting is the respondent’s present attempt to justify continued possession over site No.422 by referring to an alleged transfer of site No.490 from the Slum Board. This justification is utterly untenable in view of the official communication of the Slum Board which categorically states that site No.490 is neither part of its notified layout nor was it ever transferred in favour of the BBMP for the purpose of constructing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan. This justification is utterly untenable in view of the official communication of the Slum Board which categorically states that site No.490 is neither part of its notified layout nor was it ever transferred in favour of the BBMP for the purpose of constructing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan. Thus, the BBMP’s present defence, built upon a non-existent transfer, is legally unsustainable and appears to be a desperate attempt to cover up its earlier lapses. 16. What emerges from the record is a deeply troubling picture of administrative arbitrariness and legal irresponsibility. A public body such as the BBMP, entrusted with upholding the law and protecting the rights of citizens, has instead engaged in protracted litigation on frivolous, contradictory, and misleading grounds. Its conduct reveals a disturbing pattern of shifting stands, suppression of material facts, and calculated strategies aimed at defeating the petitioner’s lawful and legitimate claim. Such conduct not only frustrates the rights of the petitioner but also erodes public confidence in the institutional integrity of the municipal body. It is incumbent upon authorities like the BBMP to act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law, standards which have been entirely disregarded in the present case. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds the conduct of the BBMP to be wholly reprehensible and bordering on abuse of the judicial process. The record discloses a clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to property, and a decade-long deprivation of lawful possession due to the arbitrary and illegal actions of the respondent. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, such conduct cannot be tolerated. The petitioner, who has been wrongfully dispossessed and subjected to mental agony and harassment for over ten years, is not only entitled to the allotment of an alternate site but also deserves to be compensated adequately for the injustice suffered. It is only through such corrective measures that faith in public institutions and the rule of law can be meaningfully restored. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER : (i) Writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 30.09.2014, produced at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent-BBMP is directed to allot an alternate site to the petitioner, in terms of the proceedings initiated in the year 2013 bearing No.11(394)/2012-13, and to execute an appropriate exchange deed at its own cost. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 30.09.2014, produced at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent-BBMP is directed to allot an alternate site to the petitioner, in terms of the proceedings initiated in the year 2013 bearing No.11(394)/2012-13, and to execute an appropriate exchange deed at its own cost. (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v) The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner towards costs of litigation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.