[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
WA No. 2878 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2878 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE 560 020.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMAR PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
Digitally APPELLANTS NOs.1 & 2 ARE BEING
signed by
SRIDEVI S THE DIFFERENT SECTION OF
Location: THE SAME AUTHORITY,
High Court BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY
of Karnataka
SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
WA No. 2878 of 2014
HC-KAR
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARANATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SMT. LATHA HANUMANTHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O A.M. HANUMANTHEGOWDA
R/AT NO. 164/1
SRI LAKSHMI NURSERY FARM
ULLALU BASTHI VILLAGE
ULLALU POST, 100 FEET ROAD
4TH BLOCK, SIR M. VISHVESHWARIAH LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 056
3. A.M. HANUMANTHEGOWDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO. 164/1
SRI. LAKSHMI NURSERY FARM
ULLALU BASTHI VILLAGE
ULLALU POST
100 FEET ROADM 4TH BLOCK
SIR M. VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 056
4. SRI S.R. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE RUDRAIAH
R/AT SOOLIKERE VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560 060
5. SRI S.P. MANGALA JYOTHI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O RAGHU RISHI
POOJA, NO.27
NEAR DEEPA NURSING HOME
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
WA No. 2878 of 2014
HC-KAR
MARATHAHALLI
BANGALORE - 37
6. SRI B.V. RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE VEERA KEMPAIAH
R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
7. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANAN MARAPPA
R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
8. SRI RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANAN MARAPPA
R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
9. THIMMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANAN MARAPPA
R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
10. NAGARAJU
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
10(a)
SMT. HANUMAKKA
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
WA No. 2878 of 2014
HC-KAR
W/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
10(b) ANJAN
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
10(c). KIRAN KUMAR
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.10(a) to (c)
R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALROE SOUTH TALUK
11. SRI DASEGOWDA
S/O CHIKKA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT MOODALA MANE
NO. 95, ISEC MAIN ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE - 72
12. SRI C. JAGADEESH
S/O CHIKKA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT MOODALA MANE
NO. 95 ISEC MAIN ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE -72
13. SRI SHIVU
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
SOOLIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE - 60.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
WA No. 2878 of 2014
HC-KAR
14. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT BHEEMANAKUPPE
RAMOHALLI POST
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1,
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO 4,
SRI D.C. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO 10 (a to c)
RESPONDENT NOs.11,12 & 14 ARE
SERVED & UNREPRESENTED
V/O. DATED 18.04.2023, NOTICE TO R-5 & R-13
IS HELD SUFFICENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01/08/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.56948-
56960/2013 & 6860-6861/2014, AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL
BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
WA No. 2878 of 2014
HC-KAR
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. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the
application - I.A.2/2017, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
2. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed by respondent Nos.6 to 10 praying that
the present appeal be dismissed insofar as the said applicants are
concerned.
3. The applicants (respondent Nos.6 to 10) state that the
subject lands (lands falling in Survey No.38/1 and Survey No.38/2
of K. Krishnasagara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk)
were notified for acquisition under the additional preliminary
notification dated 27.11.2009. However, the final notification for
acquisition of the subject lands was not issued. Consequently, no
award for acquiring the said land was also passed.
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
HC-KAR
4. The said applicants had preferred writ petitions being
WP.No.5471-5472/2013, impugning the additional preliminary
notification. The said petition was allowed and the preliminary
notification was set aside.
5. The appellant (BDA) preferred an appeal against the order
dated 28.07.2014 passed in the said writ petition as well as other
connected petitions. The appeal of the BDA (WA.No.2816/2014 -
LA-BDA), came to be dismissed by an order dated 15.09.2023,
following an earlier order in the case of BDA v. K.N. Gopal
(W.A.No.2000/2016 ; disposed of on 28.07.2023).
6. The applicants state that notwithstanding that their writ
petition had been allowed, they inadvertently filed another writ
petition along with certain other writ petitioners being
WP.Nos.56948-56960/2013, which came to be allowed by virtue of
the order dated 01.08.2014, which is impugned in the present
appeal. They contend that since they have already succeeded in
their challenge to the preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009, the
present appeal, be dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
HC-KAR
7. It is apparent from the aforesaid contention that the
applicants could not have maintained another writ petition for the
same cause of action. As noted above, it is also their contention
that the second writ petition was filed by oversight. Therefore, the
impugned order in so far as the applicants are concerned is
required to be set aside as the writ petition was not maintainable. It
is so directed.
8. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that
since the additional preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009 has
been set aside by the Court in another proceedings, which have
become final, the present appeal does not survive. He, however
seeks liberty for BDA to issue a fresh notification for acquiring the
subject land.
10. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present appeal is
disposed of.
NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB
HC-KAR
11. It is needless to state that the BDA is not precluded from
taking fresh steps for acquiring the subject land, albeit in
accordance with law.
12. Pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SD
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23
