[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Kamalamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
WP No. 8120 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 8120 OF 2026 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT KAMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA
R/AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 060
2. SMT. JINNU BAI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O M. NAGARAJU,
D/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA
R/AT NO. 1, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU- 560 060
Digitally
signed by 3. SMT NAGAMANI MV.
VIJAYA P
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Location:
HIGH COURT W/O M. RAJANNA,
OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO. 77, 4TH BLOCK,
SIR M.V. LAYOUT, ULLALU BASTI,
ULLALU UPANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 056.
4. SRI MANJUNATH MV.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA,
R/AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 060.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
WP No. 8120 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. SRI. KUMAR .V.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA
R/AT NO. 70, MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 060.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAMESHA T R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OF
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDALAH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1
SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ANNEXURE-A I.E., IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
18.02.2026 VIDE NO.BDA/ALAO/LAC/434/2025-26 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING
SY.NO.22/2 MEASURING 2 ACRES OF MANGANAHALLI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
WP No. 8120 of 2026
HC-KAR
VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH
TALUK AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER
REPRESENTATION DATED 20.05.2024 ANNEXURE - P AND
DATED 09.10.2025 AT ANNEXURE Q1 TO DELETE THE LAND
BEARING SY.NO.22/2 MEASURING 2 ACRES OF
MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, IN THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners have sought for setting aside of the
endorsement at Annexure-A dated 18.02.2026 issued by
the 3rd respondent.
2. Perusal of the endorsement at Annexure-A
would indicate that the petitioners had made a request for
dropping of the lands of the petitioners. The endorsement
takes note of the proceedings in W.P.No.32186/2010 as
well as the order in W.A.No.1783/2014. It also takes note
of the order passed in W.P.No.21695/2025 as well as the
order passed in W.A.No.1783/2014 on 22.02.2024
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
whereby there was a direction for consideration of the
petitioners' case.
3. The endorsement would indicate that the
Authority has rejected the request on the ground that as
regards the property in Sy. No. 22/2 measuring 2 acres,
award has been approved.
4. The brief facts relevant for the present purpose
are that preliminary notification came to be issued on
21.05.2008 whereby the schedule property was proposed
for acquisition by the BDA and such preliminary
notification was followed by final notification dated
18.02.2010. It is submitted that petitioners being
aggrieved by the notifications had filed W.P.No.
6705/2014 which came to be allowed in terms of the order
passed in W.P.No. 1379/2015. It is further made out from
the facts that being aggrieved by the order setting aside
notifications, respondent - BDA had filed appeals in
W.A.No. 1783/2014 and connected matters, whereby the
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
Division Bench had granted certain directions to the BDA
insofar as considering permissible relief to the site holders
and land holders while upholding the acquisition
notifications.
5. In W.A.No. 1783/2014, the Division Bench had
directed that the case of land owners be considered as
regards the request for dropping their lands from
acquisition on certain stipulated grounds as mentioned in
the operative portion of the order.
6. It is submitted that the petitioners had made a
request for considering their case in terms of the
directions in W.A.No. 1783/2014 and the respondent -
Authority having issued the endorsement at Annexure-A
rejecting the request of the petitioners, petitioners have
filed the present writ petition.
7. Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner
no.1 is the husband of Late Venkatarasappa while
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
petitioners 2 to 5 are the children who have interest in
respect of property bearing Sy. no. 22/2 measuring 2
acres out of 3 acres 22 guntas of Manganahalli Village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
8. It is submitted that Late Venkatarasappa had
assailed the validity of the notifications by way of W.P.No.
6705/2014 which came to be disposed of in terms of the
order passed by the co-ordinate Bench whereby
notifications issued relating to Nadaprabhu Kempegowda
Layout were set aside. It is further submitted that
respondent - BDA had questioned the order passed by way
of W.A.No. 1783/2014 and connected matters which came
to be disposed of with certain directions and on fulfillment
of certain criteria, respondent - BDA was to examine the
case of the land owners and record a finding as to whether
the lands could be left out.
9. It is submitted that petitioners who are the
legal representatives of Late Venkatarasappa have made
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
out a representation on 20.05.2024 seeking for dropping
of the acquisition proceedings in respect of property in Sy.
No.22/2 measuring 2 acres in Manganahalli Village,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. In the said
representation, it was pointed out that lands surrounding
petitioners' land had been left out and as the petitioners
were running a brick factory since 2004, request was
made for dropping of the acquisition proceedings. The said
request not having been considered, W.P.No. 21695/2025
came to be filed seeking for issuance of writ in the nature
of mandamus to consider their representation.
10. The said writ petition came to be disposed of
with a direction that the respondent - BDA was directed to
consider the representation and pass necessary orders
while taking note of the order in W.A.No.1783/2014.
Subsequently, the petitioners had made another
representation to the BDA with similar request.
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
11. It is submitted that the respondent - BDA had
passed resolution No. 83/24 dated 31.07.2024 whereby
the case of some of the land owners was taken up for
consideration by the respondent - BDA in terms of the
order passed in W.A.1783/2014. However, the said
resolution contains no discussion regarding consideration
of the petitioners' case. It is pointed out that in fact in
terms of the notices enclosed at Annexures-S1 to S13,
notices have been issued describing the occupation of the
petitioners to be 'unauthorised' and that within 7 days
without considering their case in terms of the direction in
W.A.No.1783/2014 notices were issued calling upon the
petitioners to vacate and hand over vacant possession.
12. Sri. Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for
the respondent - BDA, would submit that Late
Venkatarasappa had in fact expressed consent for passing
of a consent award and if that were to be so, the
petitioners who claim as legal representatives are
estopped from seeking for any relief for dropping of the
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that though
the petitioners have relied on the directions in
W.A.1783/2014, however when W.P.21695/2025 was
disposed of, the only direction was for consideration of the
representation of the petitioners in accordance with law. It
is further submitted that once the consent award is
passed, unless the same is set aside by due process of
law, the question of seeking dropping of proceedings does
not arise.
13. Heard both sides.
14. It must be noticed that reliance of the
petitioners is on the directions passed in W.P.21695/2025.
The petitioners in the said writ petition are the legal
representatives of late Venkatarasappa and the
observations made in W.A.1783/2014 were taken note of.
While the Single Judge had set aside the land acquisition
notification, in appeal the order of the Single Judge was
set aside and the notifications having been upheld certain
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
directions were issued relating to land owners and site
owners who could claim benefits in terms of the directions.
Provision was made to the land owners to seek for
dropping of the proceedings.
15. Though in W.P.21695/2025, the Court had
noticed observations made in writ appeal whereby
provision was made for dropping of proceedings, the
direction passed was for the BDA to consider the
representation and pass orders in accordance with law.
However, there is a reference at Para 4 of the order in
W.P.No.21695/2025 that the petitioners had sought for
setting aside of consent given by the father of the
petitioners. The said consent award was not set aside.
16. The petitioners have also made representation.
In such representation, reference is made regarding the
consent award passed and the petitioners were aware of
the consent award passed though efforts are made to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
overcome the same by contending that even
Venkatarasappa never had the intention to consent.
17. It is significant to note that, application seeking
amendment of the writ petition in W.P.No.21695/2025 was
filed. The petitioners had assailed the validity of the
consent award dated 05.07.2012. The mahazar report
dated 06.03.2010 was also challenged. The petitioners in
their application had sought to adopt an ambiguous stand
insofar as the consent award.
18. The petitioners contend on the one hand that
the award has not been acted upon and is void. It is
asserted that the said award was not brought to the notice
of the Court in the previous proceedings when there was a
challenge to the validity of the notifications. On the other
hand, it is contended that the judicial order prevails over
all arrangements between the parties.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent - BDA has
produced along with a memo various documents. The
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
notice dated 14.08.2008 is issued to Venkatarasappa and
another which stipulates that the land owners are entitled
to exercise the option of accepting developed land as
compensation (9583 sq. ft. of land for 1 acre). The said
notice bears the signature of Venkatarasappa. A further
notice on same lines dated 12.08.2011 is also produced
which also is duly acknowledged by Venkatarasappa
through whom the petitioners claim.
20. Copy of the agreement dated 05.07.2012 is
produced and the same is signed by Venkatarasappa and
in terms of which, the land owner was entitled to get an
extent of 9583 sq. ft. of developed sites as regards 1 acre
of land and cash compensation for the remaining 1 acre of
land. It was further submitted that in the event the land
owner came forward to accept cash compensation an
amount of Rs.80,00,000/- per acre including all statutory
benefits could be offered. It is necessary to note that in
terms of Clause 7 of the said agreement, it is specifically
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
averred that the land owner 'will not file any case in any
court against the first party'.
21. It is necessary to notice that the said
agreement is executed by Venkatarasappa and the
agreement has the signature of Venkatarasappa. Copy of
the consent award dated 05.07.2012 is also placed on
record. In terms of the said consent award at Para 17,
there is observation that compensation of Rs.1.00 crore is
fixed as regards 1 acre and 9583 sq. ft. of developed sites
have been earmarked as compensation by way of
developed property instead of cash compensation. The
said award has been approved by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority. Copy of
the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, is also enclosed which bears the signature
of Venkatarasappa. Affidavit of Venkatarasappa dated
23.07.2012 is also produced reiterating his readiness to
claim compensation.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
22. It is only thereafter that petition came to be
filed in 2014.
23. No doubt, W.P.6705/2014 came to be filed
assailing the preliminary and final notifications, however,
the petition was disposed of in terms of the observations
and order passed in W.P.1379/2015. It is necessary to
note that the Court did not enter into any fresh
adjudication but merely relied upon orders passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench wherein the acquisition notifications
were set aside.
24. The said order setting aside the notifications
was taken up by way of appeal in W.A.No.1771/2015 and
the writ appeal was disposed of by a common order along
with several other appeals. It is necessary to notice that
the challenge to the notifications was rejected and while
upholding the acquisition notifications, certain directions
were granted to enable land owners to seek dropping of
lands from acquisition, if certain criteria are met.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
25. Subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal,
the legal representatives of Late Venkatarasappa who are
the petitioners made out a representation on 20.05.2024
seeking dropping of their lands from acquisition and on
alleged inaction of the authorities, W.P.21695/2025 came
to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to direct
the respondents to consider representation dated
20.05.2024 for dropping of acquisition proceedings.
26. It is to be noticed that the Court finally while
disposing of the writ petition directing consideration of
representation of the petitioners has noticed at Para 4 that
the petitioners were "............ (4)... seeking quashment of a
consent given by the father of the petitioners".
27. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioners
had filed an application seeking amendment to the writ
petition seeking setting aside of consent award as well as
mahazar. However, the said application has not been
adjudicated.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
28. Though the order in W.P.21695/2025 makes a
reference to the directions passed in W.A.1783/2014 and
connected matters wherein directions were made out for
the respondent - BDA to consider the case of the
petitioners for dropping of acquisition, however, such
consideration obviously would be consideration of the
representations of the land owners in accordance with law.
29. The observations made by the court cannot
place the petitioners with any superior rights than they
possess.
30. Once the land owners had consented for
passing of a consent award as noticed from the documents
at Para Nos. 19 to 21 above, they have no further legal
right to seek to reopen the acquisition proceedings which
have culminated in a consent award.
31. The statutory scheme under the Land
Acquisition Act would not provide for reopening of a
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
consent award. The question of seeking any further relief
such as dropping of acquisition would not arise as long as
the consent award continues to remain as a part of the
record.
32. The petitioners did make a feeble effort to have
the consent award and mahazar set aside by way of
application made in W.P.21695/2025 but no orders were
passed. If that were to be so, the consent award still
remains binding on the petitioners herein who claim
through Venkatarasappa. The affidavit and the agreement
executed by Venkatarasappa are binding on him and his
legal representatives and the petitioners are estopped
from seeking any relief which is inconsistent with the
terms of the consent award.
33. No legal right would ensue to the petitioners by
contending that the consent award is not acted upon as
long as the said consent award is not set aside by a
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18633
HC-KAR
competent court. There lies no cause of action to seek for
any other relief.
34. The endorsement by the respondent - BDA
clearly narrates the entirety of events and culminates in
rejection of the request which is indeed consistent with the
legal position that would not enable the petitioners to seek
for any relief independent of the consent award.
35. The present writ petition itself amounts to an
abuse of the process of Court insofar as multiple litigations
are instituted, while all along the consent award of the
year 2012 continues to bind the parties.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
SD/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
