Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Mr. P. Arjuna on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39747-DB
W.A. No.811/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.811/2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU-560020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU-560020.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by RUPA V
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA H.T. ADV.,)
Location: High
Court of
karnataka AND:
1. MR. P. ARJUNA
S/O LATE MR. PARASURAM
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.819/3, 13TH CROSS
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA WEST
BENGALURU-560082.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39747-DB
W.A. No.811/2023
HC-KAR
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, ADV., FOR C/R1
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 14.12.2022 IN W.P.NO.54343/2016 (LA-BDA) PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed by the Bangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA')
assailing the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in
W.P.No.54343/2016 (LA-BDA).
2. Sri.Basavaraja H.T., learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has failed
to take note of the fact that the land in question was vested
with the BDA as the award was passed and the possession of
the land was taken. It is submitted that the learned Single
NC: 2025:KHC:39747-DB
HC-KAR
Judge, erroneously considering the earlier orders of this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has come to the conclusion
that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed as the scheme of
the BDA in relation to J.P. Nagar 9th phase had lapsed and also
on the ground that the possession and enjoyment of the land is
with the respondent-land owner. Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal.
3. Sri.Javeed S., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, taking
note of the material placed before him has recorded a clear
finding that the possession of the land in question was not
taken by the BDA and the BDA has failed to implement the
J.P.Nagar 9th Stage scheme and the said finding does not call
for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. We have
given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
on both sides.
NC: 2025:KHC:39747-DB
HC-KAR
5. The undisputed facts are that the preliminary
notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was
issued on 17.11.1988 and thereafter final notification was
issued on 22.07.1991. The land bearing Sy.No.31/1C of
Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk measuring 2 acres 8 guntas was acquired pursuant to the
aforesaid notifications for the formation of "Jayaprakash
Narayan Nagar 9th Stage". The learned Single Judge,
considering the case of V.VENKATESH AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 recorded a finding
that the scheme of the BDA in relation to J.P.Nagar 9th Stage
layout had lapsed and accordingly quashed the acquisition
proceedings. It is to be noticed that the decision of the learned
Single Judge in the case of V.VENKATESH, referred supra has
been challenged in W.A.Nos.187-188/2017 and W.A.Nos.698-
701/2018 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 10.04.2019 dismissed the appeals. The BDA took up the
same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos.29140-
W.P.Nos.1377/16 & 1382/16 dt.21.4.16
NC: 2025:KHC:39747-DB
HC-KAR
145/2019 and the said special leave petition came to be
dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2022. Considering the
aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge has recorded a
finding that the BDA has failed to implement the J.P.Nagar 9th
Stage scheme and more particularly, recorded a finding that
the BDA has failed to take possession of the land in question
and the said finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the
appreciation of the material placed before him. We do not find
any error or perversity in such finding.
6. The appellant-BDA has placed certain documents
along with an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Considering the same also,
we are of the view that the appellant-BDA has failed to
establish that they have taken possession of the land in
question layout is formed and implemented the scheme
substantially. We do not find any error or perversity in the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for
interference in this appeal.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:39747-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly rejected.
Pending application, if any is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
