Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rani vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
WP No. 32260 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.32260 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RANI
W/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, JP NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE,
BANGALORE-560078. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
COURT OF SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU-560020.
KARNATAKA
3. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU-560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO/A4/PR/
194/2002-03 DATED 07.11.2002 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
WP No. 32260 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
quash the preliminary notification and final notification
dated 07.11.2002 and 09.09.2003 issued by respondent
No.3.
Brief facts:
2. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of one
Smt. Jyothiamma, who was the absolute owner of the
property bearing Sy.No.10/1B, measuring 2 acres 20
guntas, situated at Uttarahalli Manavarthekaval Village
(U.M. Kaval), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk
(hereinafter referred to as "the schedule property"). The
respondent No.3 issued a preliminary notification on
07.11.2002 to acquire the schedule property, along with
other lands, for the formation of Banashankari 6th Stage
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
HC-KAR
Layout, followed by a final notification dated 09.09.2003,
which included the petitioner's land.
3. The petitioner has formed a private layout in
the schedule property. Subsequently, respondent No.3
issued a notice dated 18.05.2004, calling upon the
petitioner to pay betterment charges. Pursuant thereto,
the petitioner paid an amount of `31,76,880/-, which was
accepted by respondent No.3, without raising any
objection to the layout being developed after obtaining
necessary permissions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has developed the layout and continues to
remain in possession of the schedule property. It is
submitted that no steps were taken by the respondents
pursuant to the final notification. The acceptance of
betterment charges on 18.05.2004, it is urged, amounts to
the acknowledgment of the petitioner's possession and
title.
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
HC-KAR
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner's
mother-in-law had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.No.13890/2014, challenging the acquisition
proceedings relating to adjoining lands covered under the
same notification but situated in a different village.
6. In the said writ petition, this Court considering
the report of the Court commissioner, who was appointed
in the case of Jyothiamma Vs. The Principal Secretary
Revenue Department, Government Of Karnataka,
and Others1 (Jyothiamma), held that the scheme has not
been implemented and that the acquisition proceedings
initiated had lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) Act, 1976 ('BDA Act' for
short) and the proceedings were quashed insofar as the
petitioner's land was concerned.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the judgment relied by the petitioner in
W.P.No.48790/2012 D.D.30.01.2014
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
HC-KAR
W.P.No.13890/2014 and Jyothiamma are not applicable
to the present facts, as the lands in question in that case
pertained to Talaghattapura Village, whereas the present
lands are situated in Uttarahalli Manavarthekaval Village.
8. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions and perused the material on record.
9. In Jyothiamma's case, the Court
Commissioner appointed was directed to inspect
Sy.No.42/4 of Talaghattapura Village and to report on the
development carried out pursuant to the notification. The
Commissioner's report reads thus:
"REPORT
As on the date and time of visit i.e.,
19.1.2014 between 11 am to 12.45 pm the status of
the property bearing survey No.42/4 is that no sites
are formed and the respondents/authorities are also
unable to show or identify the site No.730 and 731
claimed to have been formed in survey No.42/4 of
Thalaghattpura village and the entire area including
the adjacent survey numbers are totally covered of
patheniam bushes and thorny weeds making it
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
HC-KAR
impossible and difficult to enter into the said
property. 3 to 4 palm date (ichala mara) trees
apart from the grave and a small old structure
existing in the said property. No road measuring 30
feet is formed as claimed by the respondents."
10. The report submitted by the Court
Commissioner states that Sy.No.42/4 of Talaghattapura
Village and the entire area including the adjacent survey
numbers are totally covered by patheniam bushes and
thorny weeds and there was no road measuring 30 feet
formed in the area as claimed by the respondents. The
Commissioner's report was accepted by this Court and
allowed the writ petition holding that the acquisition
proceedings have lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the
BDA Act.
11. Although the respondents contend that the
present land is in a different village, this Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that the Commissioner's inspection was
not confined only to Sy.No.42/4, but extended entire
surrounding area, including adjacent survey numbers. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:46348
HC-KAR
not in dispute that the petitioner's land is adjacent to
Sy.No.42/4.
12. In these circumstances, the contentions urged
by the respondents that the scheme has been substantially
implemented is not substantiated by any material. The
acquisition initiated under the same notification has
already been declared as having lapsed, holding that there
is no further development pursuant to the acquisition
proceedings. The present case is squarely covered by the
said decision and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The preliminary and final notifications are
quashed, holding that acquisition proceedings
have lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the Act in
so far as the petitioner's land is concerned.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
AT
