Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
WA No. 320 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROA,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
RUPA V AND:
Location:
High Court 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. CHINNASWAMYRAJ
S/O LATE SRI PEDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT GOLLAHALLI,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
WA No. 320 of 2023
HC-KAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
(SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DIED)
2(a) SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE PEDDA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
R/AT NO.20, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN
KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560060
AND ALSO R/AT NO.1936, 18TH MAIN ROAD
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
2(b) SMT. MEENAKSHI
D/O VARADARAJU
W/O VIJAY MURGAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.219, 4TH MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, MTB AREA
JAYANAGAR, 5TH BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 041.
2(c) SMT. POORNIMA
W/O LATE DAMODAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
2(d) HEMA D.
D/O LATE DAMODAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. POORNIMA.
2(e) SHREYAS RAJU D.
S/O LATE DAMODAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. POORNIMA
NO.2(c) TO 2(e) ARE
R/AT 390, 10 BLOCK,
BDA FURTHER EXTENSION
LAL BAHADUR SHAHSTRI NAGAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
WA No. 320 of 2023
HC-KAR
ANJINAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 108.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A TO E))
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET - ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07/11/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WRIT PETITION NO.46501/2017(LA-BDA) AND ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 29.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 07.11.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.46501/2017
(LA-BDA).
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the deceased respondent No.2 filed a writ petition
seeking prayer to declare that the preliminary notification
dated 26.03.1999 and the final notification dated
11.09.2000 are lapsed insofar as the schedule property. It
is averred that the deceased respondent No.2 was the
owner of the lands in different survey numbers of
Gollahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
including land in Sy.No.16/1A measuring 20 guntas of
Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, which is the subject matter of this appeal. It is
further averred that in the said property, the family
members of the deceased respondent No.2 are residing
from the last 30-35 years and out of the said extent, 20
guntas of the land has been notified for acquisition and the
remaining extent of the said survey number has been sold
to third party. It is also averred that the appellant-BDA
did not pass any award, possession was not taken and no
layout was formed. Hence, he sought for a declaration
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed and
abandoned. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by
the BDA.
3. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that the learned
Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition
solely on the ground that the earlier writ petition filed by
the petitioner challenging the acquisition proceedings was
rejected and liberty was reserved to seek de-notification
and without doing so, filing of the present petition seeking
a declaration that the acquisition is lapsed, is not
maintainable. It is submitted that the deceased
respondent No.2 had consented for the acquisition which is
evident from the communication dated 07.06.1999 at
Document No.1 produced along with the statement of
objections filed by the appellants. Once the consent is
given to the acquisition, they are estopped from
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
challenging the acquisition. It is further submitted that
the appellants have alienated the land in favour of
Sri.K.Venkataraman as per Document No.2. Hence, he
has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It is also
submitted that the filing of the writ petition in the year
2017 seeking the relief of lapsing is hit by delay and
laches and there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of small
extent. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance
on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the cases of
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1
and THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2. Hence, he seeks to allow
the appeal.
WA No.754/2023 dt. 18.9.25
WA No.4121/2017 dt. 24.5.22
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned
Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2(a to e) supports
the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and
submits that in the earlier writ petition filed by the wife of
the petitioner challenging the preliminary and final
notifications issued by the BDA mainly on the ground that
the adjacent survey numbers are not included in the
acquisition proceedings was dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches. This Court reserved liberty to the
petitioner to seek deletion of the property from
acquisition. It is submitted that the prayer in the present
petition is seeking a declaration that the acquisitions are
lapsed and abandoned which is again pursuant to the
liberty granted by this Court in W.P.No.34067/2017. It is
further submitted that the total extent of the land in
Sy.No.16/1A was measuring 1 acre 6 guntas. Out of the
said extent, 25 guntas was sold and with regard to the
remaining extent, a prayer was sought seeking a
declaration that the acquisition is lapsed. It is also
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
submitted that insofar as the alienated property of the
respondent, the BDA has considered the request of the
purchaser, collected betterment charges which clearly
establishes that the BDA has abandoned the acquisition
proceedings insofar as the suit schedule property as well
as the alienated portion of the same survey number. It is
contended that the learned Single Judge, taking note of
the fact that the BDA has failed to pass any award and had
failed to take possession of the land and failed to
implement the scheme insofar as suit schedule property,
has rightly held that the acquisition proceedings have
lapsed which does not call for any interference. Hence,
he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent No.1, the
learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2(a to e)
and perused the material available on record. We have
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
given our anxious consideration to the submissions made
on both sides.
6. The deceased respondent No.2 filed a writ
petition seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other writ or an order declaring the
notifications issued for acquisition of scheduled land by the
Government of Karnataka under the preliminary
notification dated 26.03.1999 and the final notification
dated 11.09.2000 at Annexures-B and C, as lapsed mainly
on the ground that the acquisition is for the benefit of the
appellants-BDA and they have failed to pass award and to
take possession of the land. The landowners have
contended that there are existed structures in the
schedule property and the family members of the
respondents are residing in the said premises for more
than 30 years which came to be accepted by the learned
Single Judge by allowing the writ petition. The wife of the
respondent No.2 Smt.Saraswathamma filed
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
W.P.No.32360/2010 challenging the acquisition
notifications insofar as various extents of lands in different
survey numbers referred in the petition. The said writ
petition came to be rejected on the ground of delay and
laches vide order dated 18.03.2011. The order of this
Court indicates that the liberty was granted to the
petitioner therein to seek for deletion of land of 25 guntas
in Sy.No.16/1A which is the schedule property in the
present proceedings. However, it was specifically
contended by the petitioner therein that the surrounding
lands have been de-notified from the acquisition
proceedings and considering the various aspects, the
Court has reserved liberty to submit a representation
seeking for deletion of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.16/1A
on the ground that the family members of the present
respondents are residing and structures have come up.
7. Be that as it may, the deceased respondent
No.2 has filed W.P.No.34067/2017 challenging the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
acquisition notifications which came to be withdrawn. The
learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.09.2017
dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn with liberty
to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate declaration
within 30 days from the date of order and thereafter, the
present writ petition is filed seeking the relief of
declaration that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed. In
view of the sequence of events narrated supra, the
appellants cannot contend that the filing of the writ
petition is hit by delay and laches.
8. The contention of the appellant-BDA that the
deceased respondent No.2 having failed in challenging the
acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.32360/2010, cannot
maintain the present writ petition, is also required to be
rejected on the ground that the earlier writ petition filed
by the wife of the deceased respondent No.2 in
W.P.No.32360/2010 was a challenge to the acquisition
proceedings and the same came to be negated on the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
ground of delay and laches granting liberty to seek de-
notification of the present schedule property and the
present writ petition is filed pursuant to the liberty granted
by this Court in W.P.No.34067/2017 seeking the relief of
declaration that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed and
abandoned insofar as the schedule property is concerned
on the ground that the acquisition is not completed by the
appellant-BDA. The right to seek the relief of declaration
that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed or abandoned
continued to remain in view of non-passing of the award
by the appellant-BDA and non-taking possession of the
schedule property. Admittedly, the appellant-BDA has
neither passed award nor taken possession of the schedule
property for more than 25 years as the preliminary
notification was issued on 26.03.1999 and the final
notification was issued on 11.09.2000. The schedule
property is not vested with the State as well as the BDA
and considering the aforesaid aspect, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition. Though the learned Single
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
Judge in the operative portion has quashed the said
notifications insofar as the petition schedule property, the
order should be read and understood as the declaration
that the acquisition proceedings are abandoned by the
appellant-BDA insofar as the schedule property.
9. The further contention of the appellant-BDA
that the deceased respondent No.2 has no locus to
maintain the writ petition as he had sold the property in
favour of K.Venkataraman vide registered sale deed
produced at Document No.2 to the statement of objections
of the appellant is untenable. A perusal of the sale deed
executed by the wife of the respondent No.2 produced at
Document No.2 indicates that the land measuring 25
gunas out of 1 acre 6 guntas and 4 guntas of kharab in
Sy.No.16/1A of Anjanapura Village was alienated in favour
of K.Venkataraman and the remaining extent of the said
survey number is the schedule property which is
measuring 20 guntas. It is to be noticed that the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
purchaser pursuant to the sale deed referred supra,
approached the appellant-BDA requesting for
regularization and the appellant-BDA accepted the
betterment charges from K.Venkataraman as is evident
from Annexure-P. Such an act of the appellant-BDA
clearly demonstrates that the BDA has given up the
acquisition proceedings insofar as the land purchased by
K.Venkataraman. The contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant-BDA with regard to the locus has no
merit in view of the aforesaid finding recorded by us. The
appellant-BDA, having accepted that they do not intend to
continue the acquisition proceedings insofar as 25 guntas
of the land in Sy.No.16/1A of Anjanapura Village, as they
have accepted the betterment charges from
K.Venkataraman, now they cannot contend that they
would develop the small piece of land of 20 guntas of the
same survey number which is the schedule property.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
10. Another contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant-BDA that the respondent-land owner has
sent a communication dated 07.06.1999 at Annexure-D1
consenting for acquisition, now cannot turn around and
challenge the acquisition proceedings, is also required to
be rejected. A perusal of the communication indicates
that the land owner had requested payment of the
compensation to the trees and also to the land in
Sy.No.16/1A of Anjanapura Village with an incentive site
measuring 40 x 60 ft. at a nominal rate fixed by the BDA.
The said letter refers to the meeting convened by the
Commissioner with the farmers on 05.05.1999 in the
Village Panchayat. The BDA is silent with regard to the
consent offered by the deceased respondent No.2-land
owner. It is not forthcoming from the record as to
whether the appellant-BDA agreed to pass the award and
whether any incentive site is allotted to the deceased
respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant-BDA
fairly concedes that no award is passed and no incentive
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
site is allotted to the deceased respondent No.2-land
owner. In view of the aforesaid stand, the contention that
the deceased respondent No.2 is estopped from
challenging the acquisition proceedings has no merit and is
accordingly rejected. The decision relied on by the
appellant in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY in W.A.No.4121/2017 referred supra has no
application to the facts of the case. The said writ appeal
of the BDA was allowed on the ground that the petitioner
therein was guilty of suppression of material facts. In the
case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in
W.A.No.754/2023 referred supra, has no application to the
facts of the present case as the aforesaid judgment was
rendered taking note of the peculiar facts.
11. The learned Single Judge, considering the
pleading and the material on record has recorded the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44146-DB
HC-KAR
finding that the appellant-BDA and the State have failed to
complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award
and taking possession of the land in question. We do not
find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
