Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri Rajanna
2025 Latest Caselaw 3643 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri Rajanna on 6 February, 2025

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                                                  -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB
                                                         WA No. 1996 of 2015




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                              PRESENT
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                                                  AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                               WRIT APPEAL NO. 1996 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1.    BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                            REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                            SANKEY ROAD
                            BANGALROE-560 020.

                      2.    SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
                            BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                            SANKEY ROAD
                            BANGALORE-560 020.
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO - ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN        AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1.    SRI RAJANNA
                            S/O LATE SRI HAVALKONDAPPA
                            AGED ABOT 40 YEARS

                      2.    SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
                            S/O SRI AJANNAPPA
                            AGED 23 YEARS

                      3.    SRI DEVRAJ
                            S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

                            RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
                            R/O RAGAVAHAPALLY VILLAGE
                            GOTIGERE POST
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB
                                     WA No. 1996 of 2015




     UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
     PIN: 560 083.

4.   SRI. B.R. JADAVE
     S/O LATE SRI SUBOJIRAO
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

5.   SRI. L.S. PANDURAO JADAVE
     S/O LATE SRI SUBOJIRAO
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

6.   SMT. SUDA JADAVE
     W/O LATE SRI SUBOJIRAO
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

     RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE
     R/AT HOUSE NO. 276
     CANARA BANK COLONY
     NAGARBHAVI ROAD
     BANGALORE-560072.

7.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY TO URBAN DEPARTMENT
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-560 001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A S - AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.7; VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2019, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 44654/2012 AND 45300-304/2012
DATED 20/02/2014.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL,         COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUEMENTS, THIS DAY,         JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB
                                         WA No. 1996 of 2015




CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
            AND
            HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard learned counsel Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao for the

appellant and learned AGA Sri Hareesh A.S. for respondent

No.7. Notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 served

unrepresented.

2. This appeal is filed by BDA challenging the order

dated 20.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in

WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and WP.Nos.45300-

304/2012 wherein writ petitions were allowed on the

ground that neighbouring land also acquired which was

subject-matter of the writ petition in WP.Nos.35230-

35234/2013 (LA-BDA) was allowed by this court on

13.02.2014.

3. Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant-BDA submits that Petitioners No.4 to 6 are

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB

subsequent purchasers and this issue is not at all

considered in writ petitions. Further Petitioners No.1 to 3

are said to be owners of the land to extent of 4 acres 19

guntas in Sy.No.2 of Raghuvanahalli Village out of which

26 guntas of land were sold in favour of petitioners No.4 to

6. Therefore, soon after acquisition of the land by BDA,

petitioners No.4 to 6 purchased the land in question. In

this regard learned counsel relied upon following

decisions:

1. Shiv Kumar and another Vs. Union of India (2019)

10 SCC 229 (Para 19 & 20).

2. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Manpreet Singh

and others, Civil Appeal No.277/2023.

3. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godrej Philips (P)

Ltd., & others, Civil Appeal No.3073/2022.

4. BDA Vs. Aslam & Others - WA No.829/2013.

5. Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Motilal

Agarawal and others (2011)5 SCC 394 (Paras 15 to 27).

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB

4. Learned AGA Sri Hareesh.A.S. submits that

respondents are subsequent purchasers having no locus

standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or lapsing

of acquisition proceedings. Hence, he supports the

decision of the BDA.

5. We have perused the material available on record.

The original writ petitioners were subsequent purchasers

who have acquired right, title or interest in the land in the

year 2004. The original writ petitioners were not the

recorded owner at the time when the award in respect of

land is question notification was issued. From the material

available on record, it appears that before the learned

Single Judge the original writ petitioners claimed right,

title or interest on basis of the sale deed of year 2004. In

the present case, notification under section 17 of the BDA

Act, 1894 was issued on 17.11.1988, final notification was

issued on 22.07.1991. Therefore, short question which is

posed for consideration of this court is whether the original

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB

writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers had no

locus to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition.

6. The aforesaid issue is not Res integra in view of

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv

Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported

in (2019) 10 SCC 229. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Manpreet

Singh and Ors reported in AIR 2023 SC 454 at

paragragh No.6 held as under:

' At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the original writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right, title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to the land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "ACT, 1894") was issued. From the material on record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitioner claimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the Assignment Deed of 2015. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was declared on 05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the consideration of this Court is :

Whether the original writ Petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?

6.1. The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr.

(supra), which has been subsequently followed by another Bench of this Court in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra). The decision of this Court in the case

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB

of Shiv Kumar and Anr. (supra) is a Three Judge Bench decision by which a contrary view taken by the Two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 has not been accepted and is found to be not a good law. That thereafter after following the Three Judge Bench decision in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. (supra) in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra), this Court has subsequently observed and held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings/lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.

6.2. In that view of the matter, the High Court has committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the Respondent No. 1 herein - original writ Petitioner and has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed Under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein - original writ Petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser. Under the circumstances and on that ground alone, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be quashed and set aside.'

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

present case, petitioners are subsequent purchasers.

Therefore, the subsequent purchasers have no locus standi

to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition under

the act. In view of the reasons stated above, the appeal

filed by BDA succeeds. Accordingly, we pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The appeal filed by BDA is allowed.

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB

ii) The impugned judgment passed by the learned

Single Judge in WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and

WP.Nos.45300-304/2012 is hereby set aside. Thus,

WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and WP.Nos.45300-

304/2012 filed before learned Single Judge stands

dismissed .

Pending applications if any, also stands dismissed.

SD/-

(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

SD/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

RJ