Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraja Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2024 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SRI NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
3. SRI GOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 4. SRI CHIKKANNA
SUMATHY S/O LATE PAPANNA
KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka APPELLANTS NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.5, 1ST MAIN ROAD
N.S. PALYA, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
5. SMT. SRIMATHI
W/O SRI BABU REDDY AND
D/O LATE NANJAPPA
AND LATE KAMALAMMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT DODDANEKKUNDI
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
NO.10, KOTE NIVAS
BENGALURU - 560 037.
6. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT NO.18/19, 1ST MAIN ROAD
N.S. PALYA, B.G. ROAD
BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
7. SRI RAJAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.18/19, 1ST MAIN ROAD
N.S. PALYA, B.G. ROAD
BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
8. SMT. N. RUKKAMMA
D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
9. SMT. N RENUKAMMA
D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
10. SMT. N. BHARATHAMMA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
11. SMT N. ARUNA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
12. SMT. N. JYOTHI
D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
13. SMT N SHOBHA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/A, 8TH MAIN,
14TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLER
SRI G.N.R. MOHAN
S/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDENT OF "NARAYANA MANSION"
NO.172/5/1, 4TH CROSS, B.T.M. 2ND STAGE
DOLLAR'S COLONY, BILEKAHALLI
BANNERUGATTA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALUURU - 560 001
REPTD. BY ITS PRINICPAL SECRETARY.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SRI B.V. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT No.14, 2ND MAIN ROAD
JAYABHEEMA NAGAR
BTM 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 068.
(SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S)
3(a). B.K.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE B.V.KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT NO.14, 2ND MAIN ROAD
JAYABHEEMA NAGAR
B.T.M. 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 068.
4. SRI G NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU
S/O LATE B.V. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT No. 53, 4TH CROSS
4TH MAIN, JAI BHEEMA NAGAR
BTM I STAGE, OLD MADIWALA
BENGALURU - 560 058.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. SRI G. RAMESH
S/O LATE B.V. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT No.53, 4TH CROSS
4TH MAIN, JAI BHEEMA NAGAR
BTM I STAGE
OLD MADIWALA
BENGALURU - 560 058.
6. G. RAJESHWARAMMA
D/O LATE B.V. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU
W/O SRI P.M. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT GOPI ENGINEERING WORKS
BAZAAR STREET, V KOTA
CHITTOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 001.
7. SMT. G. SULOCHANA
S/O LATE B.V. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT MUNIRATHNAMMA COMPOUND
PRITCHARD ROAD, K.G.F.
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.
8. SRI S. RADHA KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE SEENAPPA
R/AT No.30, 7TH 'C' CROSS
16TH MAIN, 4TH 'B' BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
9. SMT. B.N. KOKILA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
W/O. S. RADHA KRISHNA
R/AT NO. 30, 7TH 'C' CROSS
16TH MAIN, 4TH 'B' BLOCK
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
10. SRI KONAPPA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O. LATE KONAPPA
R/AT NO. 694, 7TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.
11. SMT. MANJULA .M
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O. SRI. KONAPPA M.K.
R/AT NO. 684, 7TH MAIN
14TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.
12. M/S. MOHAN ENTERPRISES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT NO. 165/2
KRISHNA RAJU LAYOUT
DORAISAMIPALYA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076
REPTD. BY ITS PARTNER
SRI A. MOHAN RAJU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2,
SRI H.S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3(a),
SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8 TO 12 &
RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 7 ARE SERVED & UNRERESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
WA No. 1234 of 2024
HC-KAR
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.9180/2022 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS PRAYED IN THE WRIT
PETITION & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal, impugning a
judgment dated 19.03.2024 ['impugned order'] passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9180/2022 (BDA) captioned, 'Sri.
Nagaraja Reddy & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others'.
2. The appellants had filed the said petition, inter alia impugning
the allotment of alternate land in favour of respondent No.3 [Shri
B.V. Krishna Reddy, since deceased], in lieu of 1 acre and 13
guntas of land comprised in Survey No.43/4 in Madiwala Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The alternate land was
allotted to late Shri B.V. Krishna Reddy, in terms of an order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
25.05.2010 issued by respondent No.1. The appellants also
impugned orders dated 17.12.2012 making bulk allotment of land
comprising in Survey No.172 / 2A of Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk [subject land], which prior to its
acquisition, belonged to the father / grandfather of the appellants.
3. Additionally, the appellants also prayed for directions to be
issued to Bangalore Development Authority [BDA], to grant
restitution of the subject land to the appellants, in terms of Section
39-C of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [hereafter
'the BDA Act'].
4. The learned Single Judge, rejected the said petition with cost
quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), which was
directed to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
The learned Single Judge observed that the appellants had
challenged the acquisition of the subject land unsuccessfully before
this Court as well as before the Supreme Court, and, thereafter,
filed the petition. The Supreme Court had dismissed the Special
Leave Petition filed by the appellants. However, it had observed
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
that the same would not preclude the appellants from pursuing the
remedy for recovery of the compensation amount.
5. The Court observed that the only right, if any, that the
appellants could agitate was confined to a claim for compensation.
However, one month after the Special Leave Petition had been
dismissed, the appellants had instituted the writ petition to
challenge the bulk allotment made by the BDA in respect of the
land including the subject land, over which the appellants had no
right.
Prefatory facts
6. BDA issued a notification dated 19.09.1977 under Section 17
of the BDA Act setting out the scheme for formation of Byrasandra
- Tavarekere Madiwala Layout [BTM Layout]. The said notification
was followed by a declaration dated 07.02.1978 under Section 19
of the BDA Act. Thereafter, on 27.02.1984, an award was made in
respect of the subject land (land falling in Survey No.172/2A) and
the possession of the subject land was taken over on 09.04.1984.
Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
[hereafter the 'LA Act'] was published on 07.05.1985 and the
subject land vested with the BDA.
7. The appellants state that one Shri Ramaiah alias
Doddannaiah had purchased the subject land by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 27.05.1974 and was in peaceful
possession of the subject land. It is stated that he expired on
26.12.1998 and was survived by his legal heirs. The appellants
claim title in respect of the subject land as legal heirs of late Sri.
Ramaiah.
8. On 10.08.1983, the BDA handed over possession of 10
acres and 21 guntas which included subject land as well as the
land falling in Survey No.43/4, to Central Silk Board.
9. The appellants challenged the acquisition of the subject land
by filing a writ petition being, W.P.No.17290/2014. They had
sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed in terms of
Section 27 of the BDA Act read with Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereafter 'the 2013
Act'] due to substantial non-implementation of the scheme for
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
BTM Layout. The said writ petition was heard along with other
petitions raising similar challenge and were dismissed by an order
dated 14.12.2017.
10. The appellants preferred an intra-court appeal against the
order dated 14.12.2017 being W.A.No.744-759/2019. The said
appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 19.04.2021.
11. The appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP
No.15151-15166/2021 in the Supreme Court, which was rejected
by an order dated 01.04.2022. The said order is set out below:
"SLP(C) No(s). 15151-15166/2021:
We decline to interfere in these special leave
petitions, in the fact situation of the present case. The
special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
However, dismissal of these special leave
petitions will not come in the way of petitioners to
pursue remedy for recovery of compensation amount, if
already not received. That claim be decided on its own
merits and in accordance with law. We are not
expressing any opinion in that regard.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
12. In view of the above order, the appellants could not raise any
challenge to the acquisition of the subject land and the only remedy
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
that they could pursue was to seek compensation, if not already
received.
13. After the appellants had failed in their challenge to the
acquisition of the subject land, they instituted a writ petition being,
W.P.No.9180/2022 (BDA), inter alia seeking restitution of the
acquired land in terms of Section 38-C of the BDA Act. In the
meanwhile, land measuring 1 acre 3.67 guntas falling in
Sy.No.172/2A of Bilekahalli village was conveyed to Shri B.V.
Krishna Reddy in terms of a sale deed dated 28.02.2013 executed
by the BDA. The said lands were allotted to Shri B.V. Krishna
Reddy in lieu of land measuring 1 acre 13 guntas of land falling in
Sy.No.43/4. The said land was also subject matter of acquisition
and a part of the bulk allotment in favour of Central Silk Board. The
acquisition of the said land had been denotified, by virtue of an
order dated 27.07.1996. But the physical possession of the said
land was not available to BDA as its possession was handed over
to the Central Silk Board. Therefore, the BDA had conveyed an
alternate plot of land (land measuring 1 acre 3.67 guntas falling in
Survey No.172/2A) in favour of B.V. Krishna Reddy. According to
the appellants, the allotment of the said land was fraudulent.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
Submissions
14. First, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
land falling in Survey No.43/4 could not have been denotified, as
the acquisition was complete and the land had also been handed
over to the Central Silk Board.
15. Second, that the officials of the BDA had also found that B.V.
Krishna Reddy was not entitled to any alternate land. However, the
alternate land was conveyed to B.V. Krishna Reddy, pursuant to
the directions issued by the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka
and the Minister of State for Road Transport and Highways,
Government of Karnataka, on the request of the Leader of
Opposition of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
16. The appellants submit that since the land measuring 1 acre
and 3.67 guntas falling in Survey No.172/2A - which but for the
acquisition would belong to them - was not used for the purpose
of formation of the BTM Layout, the same was required to be
restituted in their favour. As noted above, the appellants rely on
Section 38C of the BDA Act, in support of their claim.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
Reasons and Conclusion
17. In view of the above, the first and foremost question to be
considered is, whether the appellants, after having failed in their
challenge to the acquisition, can claim any benefit under Section
38C of the BDA Act. The said section is set out below:
"38C. Power of authority to make allotment in
certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act or in any other law or any development
scheme sanctioned under this Act, or [the City of
Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945] where the Authority
or the erstwhile Board of Trustees for the improvement
of the City of Bangalore has already passed a resolution
to reconvey in favour of any persons any site formed in
the land which belong to them or vested in or acquired
by them for the purpose of any development scheme
and on the ground that it is not practicable to include
such site for the purpose of the development scheme,
the Authority may allot such site by way of sale or lease
in favour of such person subject to the following
conditions:-
(a) the allottee shall be liable to pay any charges
as the Authority may levy from time to time ; and
(b) the total extent of the site allotted under this
section together with the land already held by the
allottee shall not exceed the ceiling limit specified under
section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976.]"
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
or in any other law or any development scheme
sanctioned under this Act or the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945, but without prejudice to sub-
section (1), where the Authority after carrying out a
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
survey of land, vested in or acquired by it, is of the
opinion that such land cannot be used by it on account
of existing structure or building thereon or it is not
practicable to include such land for the purpose of
development scheme or formation of sites, the Authority
may with prior approval of the Government allot such
land by sale in favour of the original owner of the land or
the purchaser from the original owner or a General
Power of Attorney holder from such original owner or
purchaser in respect of the land, who has put up the
structure or building on the land or in favour of such
original owner, purchaser or General Power of Attorney
holder who is in possession of the land, subject to the
conditions that-
(i) the structure or building was in existence on
such land prior to the First day of January, 1995 or such
original owner, purchaser or General Power of Attorney
holder has been in possession of the land since prior to
the First day of January, 1995 and has continued to be
in possession of the land as on the date of
commencement of the Bangalore Development
Authority (Amendment) Act, 1999;
(ii) the allottee makes payment towards the
allotment of land, such amount as the Authority may,
subject to the general or special order of the
Government determine from time to time, and
(iii) the total extent of the land allotted under this
sub-section together with the land already held by the
allottee shall not exceed the ceiling limit specified under
Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section. -
(a) 'land' includes site,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
(b) 'original owner of the land' means a person
who was occupant of the land immediately before
publication of the development scheme which contained
proposal acquisition of such land.]"
18. A plain reading of Section 38C(1) indicates that the same is
applicable only if the BDA comes to a conclusion that it was not
practicable to include the acquired land for the purposes of the
development scheme. In such circumstances, the BDA could allot
the site by way of sale or lease in favour of the persons from whom
the land was acquired. Similarly, in terms of sub-section (2) of
Section 38C, the acquired land on which an existing structure or
building stands, can be reconveyed to the original owner, " if such
land cannot be used by it on account of existing structure or
building thereon or it is not practicable to include such land for the
purpose of development scheme or formation of sites".
19. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that it is
not practicable for use of the acquired land for the purpose of BTM
Layout. The respondents have placed on record the sketch of the
land falling in Survey Nos.172/1, 172/3, 172/5, 172/4, 172/2A and
172/2B. The same indicates that part of the land falling under
Survey No.172/2A had been used for the purposes of widening of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
the road and the remaining is shown as used for a building and a
petrol bunk. Land falling under Survey No.172 was also used as a
part of the layout. Thus, the fundamental premise that it was not
practicable to use the land falling in Survey No.172/2A as a part of
the development scheme, is unsustainable.
20. We concur with the opinion of the learned Single Judge that
the writ petition filed by the appellants is yet another attempt to
challenge the acquisition and seek recovery of the land, which
vested with BDA absolutely.
21. In view of the above, it is not necessary to examine whether
the allotment of land measuring 1 acre and 3.67 guntas in favour of
Shri BV Krishna Reddy was warranted. We may also note that the
land measuring 1 acre 3.67 guntas was subsequently sold in favour
of the current owner who has since raised a commercial building on
the said land. We find no fault with the impugned finding that the
appellants are precluded from raising any further challenge to the
acquisition of the land falling in Survey No.172/2A except to seek
compensation.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40179-DB
HC-KAR
22. The present appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KS
