Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Developement Authority vs K Srinivas Murthy on 14 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
W.A. No.240/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.240/2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND
Digitally signed ACQUISITION OFFICER
by RUPA V BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Location: High T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
Court of KUMARA PARK WEST
karnataka BENGALURU - 560020.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560020.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADV.,)
AND:
K. SRINIVAS MURTHY
S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 49 YEARS
NO.42, 7TH CROSS
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT
HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR M.N. ADV.,)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
W.A. No.240/2023
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 R/W RULE 27 OF HIGH COURT WRIT
PROCEEDINGS RULES 1977, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL
FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.38467/2016 (LA-BDA)
DATED 09.01.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CALL FOR
THE RECORDS OF WP No.38467/2016(LA-BDA) & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 09.01.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38467/2016.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the father of the respondent was the owner of the property
bearing Sy.No.35/4 of Halasuru Village, Bangalore North Taluk,
which was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board for
formation of HAL IV Stage layout and was later, de-notified
from the acquisition. The Authority, after de-notification, while
forming the layout, utilized 11 guntas of the land of the father
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
of the respondent for formation of 2 roads and 3 sites. The
father of the respondent filed a writ petition seeking
cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the appellant. The
writ petition came to be disposed of on the statement of the
appellant that the auction sites are not in the subject survey
number. The father of the respondent approached the
appellant, sought for conducting the survey and based on such
survey, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 were filed
wherein a direction was issued to the appellant to consider the
representation of the respondent for allotment of an alternate
site. The appellant considered the representation and allotted
3½ guntas of developed land to the respondent which was
equivalent to 7 guntas of the land claimed to be utilized by the
appellant. The respondent sought allotment of developed
alternate site to the extent of 50% of 11 guntas which came to
be rejected by the appellant under the endorsement dated
01.06.2016 which was challenged before the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by
issuing mandamus to the appellant to allot additional developed
land equivalent to 2 guntas of land in any layout formed
subsequent to HAL IV Stage, further directed to pay the cost of
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent, recover the same from the
erring officials and directed the Commissioner, BDA to initiate
such action as may be necessary against such persons after
following due process. Being aggrieved, the appellant-BDA is in
appeal.
3. Sri.Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed
a grave error in issuing a direction to the appellant-BDA to allot
2 guntas of the developed land despite specific stand of the
appellant based on the affidavit that the appellant-BDA has not
utilized 4 guntas of the land claimed by the father of the
respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge
ought to have relegated the respondent to the Civil Court to
establish his right over 4 guntas of the land. It is further
submitted that the official of the appellant conducted survey
placing reliance on the documents available with them and
came to a definite conclusion that the appellant has utilized
only 7 guntas of the land and not 11 guntas as claimed by the
respondent and insofar as the utilized land, already alternate
developed land has been allotted to the respondent. It is also
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding
with regard to the fraud in paragraphs 8 to 10 which was
uncalled for as the Authorities have not played any fraud for
utilization of the land and already alternate developed land has
been allotted and further direction to pay cost and to initiate
departmental enquiry against the erring officials was also
uncalled for as there is no lapse on the part of the officials.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Pawan Kumar M.N., learned counsel
for the respondent supports the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, taking
note of the affidavit dated 22.07.2022 of the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer has recorded a finding that the appellant-
BDA played fraud on this Court by contending that it has not
utilized 4 guntas of the land and that the onus to protect the
said 4 guntas of the land is on the petitioner-respondent. It is
submitted that the said finding is based on the material placed
before it and the same cannot be found fault with. Hence, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the
respondent and meticulously perused the material available on
record. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides.
6. The undisputed facts are that the father of the
respondent was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.35/4
of Halasuru Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was acquired
by the City Improvement Trust Board for formation of HAL IV
Stage layout under preliminary notification dated 21.09.1967
and final notification dated 16.10.1972. However, the same
was de-notified under notification dated 09.10.1976. The
records indicate that the BDA, after de-notification, while
forming the layout utilized 11 guntas of the land of the
respondent for formation of 2 roads and 3 sites. The father of
the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.81100/1997
seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the
appellant. The writ petition came to be disposed of on the
statement of the appellant that the auction sites are not in the
subject survey number. The father of the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
approached the appellant with a representation and sought for
conducting the survey. The appellant itself conducted the
survey based on the representation of the respondent and
found that the 3 auctioned sites were infact formed in the land
of the respondent bearing Sy.No.35/4. Based on such survey,
the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 were filed wherein
a direction was issued to the appellant to consider the
representation of the respondent for allotment of an alternate
site. The appellant considered the representation and allotted
3½ guntas of developed land to the respondent which was
equivalent to 7 guntas of the land claimed to be utilized by the
appellant. The respondent sought allotment of developed
alternate site to the extent of 11 guntas which came to be
rejected by the appellant under the endorsement dated
01.06.2016 which was challenged in the writ petition before the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition by issuing mandamus to the appellant to allot
developed land equivalent to 2 guntas in any layout formed
subsequent to HAL IV Stage, further directed to pay the cost of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and recover the same from
the erring officials and directed the Commissioner, BDA to
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
initiate such action as may be necessary against such persons
after following due process. It is to be noticed that the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 disposed
of on 20.03.2012 has clearly recorded a finding that the
petitioners therein being the unfortunate victims of the BDA are
entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 19.11.2009
passed by the BDA and consequently, that the petitioners are
entitled to 50% of the developed land in lieu of the property
lost by them. Admittedly, the petitioner-respondent's property
to an extent of 11 guntas was taken possession by the BDA
without acquisition proceedings and directed the BDA to
consider the representations and allot the land. The aforesaid
finding and the order of the learned Single Judge attained
finality. The appellant-BDA filed an affidavit of the Additional
Land Acquisition Officer on 22.07.2022 which indicates that
they have utilized only 7 guntas of the land of the respondent
without acquisition and remaining 4 guntas has been
encroached by some third parties and the BDA is not
responsible for the same. The said submission by way of
affidavit is merely an attempt to overcome the finding recorded
by this Court in its order dated 20.03.2012 in W.P.Nos.13017-
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
18/2011. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the
affidavit, earlier directions and survey report has recorded a
clear finding that the appellant-BDA being the statutory
authority is required to act in terms of the applicable statute
and it cannot make use of the land of the respondent without
acquisition proceedings. The said finding of the learned Single
Judge is based on the material available on record and we do
not find any error in the said finding calling for interference in
this intra Court appeal.
7. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
sanctioned plan and other documents available on record and
came to a definite conclusion that when the statutory authority
itself has forcefully, unauthorisedly and without sanction of law
encroached upon and formed a road on the private property, it
cannot be expected of a citizen like the respondent to protect
the same and the contention of the BDA that the onus of
protecting the same would lie on the respondent has no merit.
Further, a finding is recorded that as per the circular dated
19.11.2009, the appellant is liable to allot 2 guntas of
developed land to the respondent in lieu of utilization of 4
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41033-DB
HC-KAR
guntas. The further direction of the learned Single Judge
imposing cost and direction to initiate action against the erring
officials is based on the conduct and the stand of the appellant-
BDA before the writ Court. We do not find any error in the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and further
direction with regard to the cost and initiation of the
proceedings against the erring officials calling for interference
in this appeal.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit
in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
