Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt Shanaz on 23 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41703-DB
WA No. 853 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SMT SHANAZ
signed by W/O SHOUKATH
NIRMALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
DEVI
Location: 2. SMT. NARSAMMA
HIGH COURT W/O SHOUKATH
OF AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
KARNATAKA
3. SRI. ALLABAKASH
S/O MOHAMMED MASOOD
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
4. SMT. NAZEEMA
W/O MOHAMMED SHAMMUN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41703-DB
WA No. 853 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SRI. LIYAKATH KHAN
S/O FAKRULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT SY.NO. 39/1 NAGADEVANHALLI VILLAGE,
GNYNABHARTHI LAYOUT,
KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 11.09.2023 PASSED IN WP No-3099/2016 (LA-
BDA) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HONBLE COURT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant [BDA] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.3099/2016 [LA-BDA], whereby the said petition was allowed.
2. Respondents had filed the said petition impugning the notification dated 19.01.1994, regarding acquisition of land to the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:41703-DB WA No. 853 of 2025 HC-KAR extent of 8 guntas falling in Survey No.39/1, situated in Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengiri Hobli, Bangalore-South Taluk [hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'].
3. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA does not dispute that the notification for acquiring the land was quashed in terms of the order passed in another writ petition and the said order has attained finality. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment.
4. We also note that there is an inordinate delay of 570 days in filing the appeal, which is also not sufficiently explained. There is no credible ground for condoning the said delay.
5. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed both on limitation as well as on merit.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20