Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ajay vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 15096 OF 2024 (BDA)
BETWEEN
SRI. AJAY,
S/O. SRI. SUKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O.NO.21/2, KEMPAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AJAY., PETITIONER/PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
-2-
BANGALORE - 560 020.
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.G. BHANUPRAKASH., AAG FOR
SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. B. VACHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERNAL
REPORT (AT ANNEXURE-A) DATED 01/03/2024 BEARING
SUBJECT NO. 66/2023-24 TITLED NOTE TO AUTHORITY
MEETING ISSUED BY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 26.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
The petitioner, is seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
Internal Report (at Annexure 'A') dated
01/03/2024 bearing Subject No 66/2023-
2024 titled "Note to Authority Meeting" issued by
Bangalore Development Authority.
-3-
(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
Report (at Annexure 'B') dated 01/03/2024 Ref:
BemAPra/ BhooSwaAa/ 325/2023-24 issued by
the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority addressed to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Government of Karnataka;
(iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
Revised Final Notification No.UDD 426 MNJ 2011
dated 18/06/2014 at (Annexure 'C') for
Remodified Scheme of Arkavathy Layout issued by
the Urban Development Secretariat, Government
of Karnataka, insofar as lands of the Petitioner are
concerned bearing Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 Acre
18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 Acre 33
Guntas, Sy.No.20/1 measuring 36 Guntas and
Sy.No.20/2 measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in
Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, in the interest of justice and equity.
(iv) Issue any such other appropriate Writ or
Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deemed
-4-
fit including the grant of exemplary costs under
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.
Additional Prayer:
(v) To quash Order No.NAE 01 BemBhooswa
2024 (CCMS), dated 09-04-2025 being a letter
from the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka to Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority, in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. It is not disputed that preliminary notification
under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976, was issued on
03.02.2003, for acquisition of 3339 Acres and 12 Guntas
of land for the formation of Arkavathi Layout. A modified
preliminary notification was issued proposing to acquire
3839 Acres and 12 Guntas spreading around 16 villages.
However, the final notification under Section 19(1) of the
Act was issued on 23.02.2004 in respect of 2750 Acres of
-5-
land, including the lands in question viz., 5 acres and 6
guntas of land in Sy.Nos.21/2, 21/3, 20/1 and 20/2
situated at Kempapura village. Several land owners filed
writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings
before this Court in W.P.Nos.26601-04/2004 and
connected matters including W.P.No.20235/2004, filed by
the petitioner herein. This Court struck down the entire
acquisition proceedings and the decision is reported in the
case of Smt.Sharadamma and Another Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others, in ILR 2005 Kar 3710. The
decision in the case of Smt.Sharadamma and Another
were challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench in
W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected matters. The Hon'ble
Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge, however directions were also issued to the
respondents to consider the representations given by the
land owners, who were seeking deletion or dropping of the
acquisition proceedings on various grounds. Some of the
-6-
land owners including the petitioner herein questioned the
decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench before the Hon'ble
Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the
SLPs affirming the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench,
with further directions and clarifications. The said decision
is reported as Bondu Ramaswamy and Others Vs. The
Bangalore Development Authority and Others, in (2010)
7 SCC 129.
3. The petitioner/party-in-person submits while
drawing the attention of this Court to judgment in the case
of Bondu Ramaswamy, where it was directed as regards
Kempapura Village, to reconsider the objections to the
acquisitions, having regard to the fact that large areas
were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than
50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was
also subsequently deleted from acquisition. Therefore,
Bangalore Development Authority was required to consider
whether in view of deletions to a large extent,
-7-
development with respect to the balance of the acquired
lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so,
whether the balance area also should be deleted from
acquisition. It was directed that if BDA proposes to
continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four
months before the High Court so that consequential orders
could be passed. It was also directed that, where several
very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands
which were not acquired or which were deleted from the
proposed acquisition, the BDA may consider whether such
small pockets should also be deleted if they are not
suitable for formation of self contained layouts. It was held
that the acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the
ground that small islands of acquired land, could be used
as a stand alone park or playground in regard to a layout
formed in different unconnected lands in other villages. It
was also directed that under similar circumstances, where
-8-
similar isolated pockets of acquisition were made in other
villages, they too should be dealt with in a similar manner.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation
dated 12.06.2010 vide Annexure 'L' requesting the BDA to
exclude the petitioner's lands from acquisition. However,
without considering the representation and pursuant to
the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
respondent-BDA and its Board resolved to delete 983.33
Guntas of land and issued a second modified final
notification on 18.06.2014. As a consequence, the BDA
left out a further 15 acres and 38 guntas from acquisition
in Kempapura Village. Thereby, 80% of the lands
proposed for acquisition in Kempapura Village were
thereafter deleted while only 11 acres of land including 4
acres and 39 guntas belonging to the petitioner were
continued in acquisition. It is submitted that even
amongst the four pieces of land belonging to the
petitioner, 1 acre and 33 guntas in Sy.No.21/3, is the
-9-
biggest chunk, while the remaining are 1 acre 18 guntas in
Sy.No.21/2, 36 guntas in Sy.No.20/1 and 32 guntas in
Sy.No.20/2. All the pieces of property are disjoint and do
not form a contiguous portion of land.
5. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.35573/2015 and
36274-276/2015, challenging the notification dated
18.06.2014 and the report dated 15.09.2010 comprising
resolution No.303/2010 of the BDA. This Court by order
dated 19.04.2018 partly allowed the writ petitions while
quashing the resolution No.303/2010 which contained
report dated 15.09.2010 while directing the BDA to
reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in mind, the
treatment given to similarly placed landlords and the
directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy. The petitioner
once again gave a representation dated 07.05.2018 at
Annexure 'P', requesting deletion of the lands in question
from acquisition proceedings. The petitioner also filed
W.A.No.1529/2018 calling in question the other portion of
-10-
the order passed by this Court. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, BDA passed a final report dated
17.09.2018, rejecting the request made by the petitioner.
The petitioner filed Contempt Petition in CCC
No.2040/2018 and in the said proceedings the final report
dated 17.09.2018 was produced by the respondent-BDA
and consequently, the Contempt Petition was dropped.
The petitioner filed W.P.No.25861/2019, questioning the
final report dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. By order dated 04.04.2022, in
W.P.No.25861/2019, this Court quashed the final report
dated 17.09.2018 and in the connected writ petitions i.e.,
W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters including the
writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court
rejected the challenge raised to the second modified final
notification dated 18.06.2014. However, learned Single
Judge proceeded to appoint a three men committee
headed by Hon'ble Shri. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana to
-11-
look into various aspects as indicated in the order to
implement the order passed in W.A.No.2624/2015 and
connected matters dated 25.11.2005 in the case of The
Commissioner, BDA and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others, and the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy.
In addition, it was also directed that the committee shall
examine all such representations received by the BDA
pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division
Bench and the Hon'ble Apex Court and to submit a report
to the BDA as to whether such claims would fall within the
exception carved out under the judgments for deleting the
lands or not. It was further directed that the BDA shall
thereafter take steps to delete or to include such lands
from acquisition.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the
Committee constituted by this Court and the Committee
while considering the case of the petitioner in proceedings
-12-
bearing KNKC No.42/2022, found that the property in
question falls within the parameters issued by the Hon'ble
Division Bench and accordingly, recommended for deletion
of the property in question from the acquisition
proceedings. The petitioner/party-in-person submits that
the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer,
BDA addressed a letter dated 25.05.2023 at Annexure 'Z'
to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development
Department, along with the recommendation of the Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee. However, since no
action was taken by the State Government, the petitioner
filed W.P.No.27329/2023 seeking a writ of mandamus to
implement the recommendation of the Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee. During the course of
the proceedings, the State Government submitted a memo
before this Court on 30.01.2024, stating that it has sought
for further clarification at the hands of the BDA. By order
dated 07.02.2024 this Court directed the BDA to send its
-13-
report to the Government within ten days and thereafter
the Government was directed to take a decision within a
period of two months. It is submitted that the BDA
passed a pre-dated order dated 01.03.2024
recommending the continuation of the acquisition
proceedings. However, since the petitioner was not made
aware of such an order or decision, the petitioner filed
Contempt Petition in CCC No.405/2024. The petitioner
had to file an application under the Right to Information
Act and the Information Officer of BDA furnished a copy
of the internal report dated 01.03.2024 to the petitioner
on 16.05.2024.
7. Consequently, the petitioner has filed an
application in I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to amend the writ
petition while adding additional reliefs to quash order
bearing No.NAE 01 Bem Bhoo Swa 2024 (CCMS) dated
09.04.2025. This Court had directed that the application
will be heard along with the main matter.
-14-
8. It would be beneficial to notice that this Court was
hearing a similar matter in W.P.No.14587/2024 and
connected matters and during the course of those
proceedings, when the State Government accepted the
resolution passed by the Bangalore Development Authority
to continue the acquisition proceedings, despite the
recommendation of Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana
Committee to drop the acquisition proceedings, this Court
had called upon the State Government to place on record
any material which was taken into consideration by the
State Government to accept the resolution passed by the
BDA. By way of a memo dated 17.03.2025, the learned
AGA furnished copy of a communication dated 15.03.2025
made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban
Development Department to the learned Government
Advocate. This Court finds that in the communication
dated 15.03.2025 the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban
Development Department, has only culled out the
-15-
recommendation or the resolution passed by the Board of
the Bangalore Development Authority and for the same
reasons, the State Government has accepted the
resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore
Development Authority.
9. Learned Counsel Sri B.Vachan, appearing for the
respondent-BDA vehemently contended that the Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee was required to examine
as to whether the deletion of lands by the State
Government subsequent to the notification dated
23.02.2004 and before issuance of notification dated
18.06.2014 was in accordance with the dicta laid down by
the Division Bench and whether it was in compliance of
the directions issued by the Apex Court in the Bondu
Ramaswamy's case. Learned Counsel would therefore
submit that the Committee was required to examine the
entire aspect of the matter holistically and not on case to
case basis. Learned Counsel contended, while pointing
-16-
out to the map, that the four pieces of lands are adjacent
to each other and they do form a compact unit and sites
have been formed on the lands in question and have been
allotted to various persons.
10. Learned Counsel contended that if the
Committee were to examine the case of every individual
land owner, it could find that the neighbouring lands were
dropped from acquisition proceedings for a particular
reason and therefore, the particular land also should be
deleted from acquisition proceedings because it had a
common factor. On the other hand, the directions issued
by the Division Bench and the Apex Court in Bondu
Ramaswamy's case was to ensure that if the State
Government had wrongly dropped the acquisition
proceedings, the said benefit cannot be given to the
neighbouring land in question, on the other hand, the
dropping of the acquisition proceedings earlier should be
held as illegal and therefore, the direction was to restore
-17-
such lands for acquisition in order to maintain a contiguity
of the layout at the hands of the BDA.
11. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person, learned
Counsel for the respondent-BDA and the learned AGA.
12. Recently, this Court has passed an order in
W.P.No.14587/2024 and connected matters where similar
contentions were raised, although the only difference
between the two matters is that the lands in question are
situated at Kempapura Village and the lands in those
matters were situated at Thanisandra Village. This Court
has held in those matters that, it is very clear that the
Committee has taken into consideration all relevant
aspects before recommending the deletion of the lands in
question from acquisition proceedings, since all the
neighbouring lands surrounding the land in question were
either not notified or were deleted from acquisition
proceedings subsequently.
-18-
13. Most importantly, it is noticeable that a huge
tract of land in the same survey number, which was
dropped from the acquisition proceedings has been
developed by the land owner and a huge residential
apartment structure is standing on the said land. In fact,
the petitioner contended that he has bought an apartment
therein and is residing in the said apartment. The Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee has found on physical
verification that the four pieces of land are disjoint and
BDA could not form a well defined contiguous self-
contained layout on the lands in question. It was found
that large extents of lands surrounding these small pieces
of land notified for acquisition, having not been notified for
acquisition, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said
that a well defined layout can be formed out of the
acquired pieces of land scattered all around and located at
the disjointed places. The Committee has noticed the
working plan produced by the BDA and found that out of
-19-
11 acres of land which are notified for acquisition under
the modified final notification dated 18.06.2014, the area
available for formation of plots is about 9753 sq. mtrs.
and the total number of sites of different dimensions,
including corner sites proposed to be formed in these
lands are about 95. The Committee found that in the
event of continuing with the acquisition and the respective
land owners accepting the developed land in lieu of
compensation, the number of sites that may be left for
BDA would be about 55. This is what is found in respect
of all the lands acquired and continued in the final
notification dated 18.06.2014, in Kempapura Village. The
Committee therefore recommended deletion of the lands
in question, since the acquisition of the lands in
Kempapura Village has become illogical and impractical.
The Committee also found that no third party interest has
been created in respect of the lands in question.
-20-
14. Having regard to the specific observations of the
Committee and the fact that neither the Board of the BDA
nor the State Government has considered the relevant
aspects of the matter viz., whether the petitioner is
entitled for an order of deletion, since the petitioner has
raised grounds which form common factor vis-à-vis the
neighbouring lands which were dropped from acquisition
proceedings, the decision of the State Government in this
regard to continue with the acquisition proceedings, would
be contrary to the directions issued in Bondu
Ramaswamy. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the directions issued in Bondu Ramaswamy to consider
whether the continuation of the acquisition proceedings
would be illogical and impractical, would arise if the land
owners fail to satisfy the first test viz., common factor for
dropping of the acquisition proceedings. If it is a case
where the land owner is not entitled for such a benefit,
where no common factor for dropping the acquisition
-21-
proceedings are found, then the question of considering
whether the lands form an island of a layout and whether
it would be logical and practical to continue the
acquisition, are required to be considered. In the present
case, since the petitioner was entitled for dropping of the
acquisition proceedings on the ground of common factor,
the petitioner is bound to succeed.
15. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(1) Writ Petition is allowed.
(2) The impugned Internal Report dated
01.03.2024 bearing Subject No.66/2023-
24 at Annexure 'A' issued by Bangalore
Development Authority insofar as the
lands in question i.e., Sy.No.21/2
measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3
measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No.20/1
measuring 36 Guntas and Sy.No.20/2
measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in
Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(3) The impugned report dated 01.03.2024 at
Annexure 'B' bearing
Ref:BemAPra/BhooSwaAa/ 325/2023-24
issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority, insofar
as the lands in question i.e., Sy.No.21/2
measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, Sy.No.21/3
measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No.20/1
measuring 36 Guntas and Sy.No.20/2
measuring 32 Guntas, all situated in
Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
MNJ 2011 dated 18.06.2014 at Annexure
'C' for Remodified Scheme of Arkavathy
Layout issued by the Urban Development
Secretariat, Government of Karnataka,
insofar as the lands in question i.e.,
Sy.No.21/2 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas,
Sy.No.21/3 measuring 1 Acre 33 Guntas,
Sy.No.20/1 measuring 36 Guntas and
Sy.No.20/2 measuring 32 Guntas, all
situated in Kempapura Village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(5) The interlocutory application in
I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed, permitting
amendment to the writ petition. The
petitioner/party-in-person shall carry out
the amendment, forthwith.
(6) The impugned Order No:NAE 01
BemBhooswa 2024 (CCMS), dated
09.04.2025 at Annexure 'AE', issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka to Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority, insofar as
the petitioner's lands are concerned, is also
quashed and set aside.
(7) The recommendation of Hon'ble Sri.Justice
K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee at
Annexure 'E' dated 12.09.2022 insofar as
the lands in question are concerned are
accepted. The acquisition proceedings in
respect of the land in question are
accordingly dropped from acquisition
proceedings.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
JT/-
CT:JL
