dated 06.01.1998 with the respondent Nos.3 to 5 under
which it had acquired right to develop the lands in
question and pursuant thereto the respondent Nos.3 to 5
had executed power of attorney dated 06.01.1998 in
favour of the THDCL. Subsequently certain disputes arose
between the THDCL and respondent Nos.3 to 5 in relation
to the land in question. At the time of execution of the
agreement in January 1998, the lands in question were
subject to litigation and the title of Respondent Nos.3 to 5
was under challenge by the third party in the appeal
pending for the High Court in RFA No.367/1992 and the
THDCL was responsible to handle the litigation at its cost
and develop the lands in question in the event of
successful completion of litigation. The entire expenses of
the litigation, development was to be borne by the THDCL
and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 would be entitled to 15%
of shares of the gross revenue from the schedule lands
after development, the appeal in RFA No.367/1992 was
dismissed vide judgment dated 27.11.1997 and the
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide
order dated 24.01.2000.
- 24 -
20. So far as the title of the respondent Nos.3 to
5 in relation to the lands in question was concerned got
established. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 through their
letter dated 03.08.2000 repudiated the said agreement
dated 06.01.1998 and also revoked the power of attorney
granted by them in favour of THDCL which compelled the
THDCL to initiate the arbitration proceedings against the
respondent Nos.3 to 5. The said arbitration proceedings
culminated in passing the award dated 12.04.2002 in
favour of the THDCL, upholding the right of the THDCL to
the lands in question and also upholding the power of
autonomy granted by respondent Nos.3 to 5. The
respondent Nos.3 to 5 challenged the said award before
the City Civil Court Bangalore in A.S.No.30/2002 and the
same was pending. There were also proceedings
commenced under the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and
the same were also pending in appeal before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
21. The contention of THDCL was that the
acquisition of the land was against the Government Policy
Decision dated 01.06.1995. The THDCL being the
- 25 -
constituted attorney for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in
relation to the land in question filed objections dated
19.03.2003 and 22.08.2003 with the BDA in response to
the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003 and prayed
for deletion of the lands in question from the proposed
acquisition. However, ignoring the said representation,
the Final Notification dated 23.02.2004 came to be
issued, confirming the proposed acquisition of the lands
in question. The said writ petitions filed by the THDCL
were heard and disposed of along with other batch of writ
petitions filed challenging the acquisition proceedings.
22. The THDCL also filed appeal in
W.A.No.2757/2005 along with the writ appeals filed by
the BDA and the Government against the order passed by
the learned Single Judge whereby the preliminary and
final notifications were quashed. The THDCL appeal was
limited to rejection of its contention based on a
promissory estoppel. Smt.Divya Devi and her two
children who had arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in
the writ petition, they were also arrayed as respondents
in the writ appeals. All writ appeals filed against the order
passed by the learned Single Judge were heard together
- 26 -
and the Division Bench disposed of them by a common
judgment and order dated 25.11.2005. The appeal filed
by THDCL was also partly allowed, wherein the Division
Bench held that the principles of promissory estoppel
could be enforced against the Government and BDA.
However, in view of the pendency of the petition before
the Civil Court filed by the owners of the land challenging
the arbitral award in favour of the THDCL, and also
pendency of appeal filed by THDCL before the Karnataka
Revenue Appellate Tribunal, against the proceedings
initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, the Division Bench has declined to quash
the acquisition of the lands in question after upholding
the contention of application of promissory estoppel.
Nevertheless, an opportunity was given to the THDCL to
make an application to BDA and direction was given to
the BDA to consider the same and pass an appropriate
order. It was noticed by the Division Bench that the
landowners had no objection for acquisition of the lands
in question. The relevant observations made in this
regard are contained in paragraph 95 of the Judgment
- 27 -
dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Division Bench which
would read as under:
"95. However, in W.P. No.25807/2004 the
material on record is not sufficient to grant the
relief sought for. Firstly the petitioners are only
agreement holders. Though there is an award in
their favour, the same is under challenge.
Secondly, the said agreement is held to be invalid
under the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act and the said order is also under
challenge in appeal. Thirdly, the land owners are
contesting the claim of the petitioner, and in fact
they have filed memo before this Court stating
that they have no objection for the acquisition.
Though not much credence can be given to the
said memo, still the title of the petitioners is to be
established. Under these circumstances the
proper course would be to direct the petitioners to
approach the BDA with an application setting out
their claim and the BDA shall decide the said claim
on its merits in the light of what we have
said above. If the BDA were to uphold the claim of
the petitioners, then the lands covered in this Writ
Petition would stand excluded from acquisition. If
the claim is negatived, as the land owners have
no objection for acquisition, the acquisition of the
lands stand affirmed and the BDA would be at
liberty to form the layout in the land as part of
Arkavathi layout. Till such adjudication the BDA
shall stay its hands."
- 28 -
23. In the light of the aforesaid observation, the
Division Bench, in the operative portion of the order,
directed as under:
"106 (1) xxx XXX XXX
(2) W.A. No.2757/2005 is partly allowed. In
W.P.No.25807/2004 filed by Tata Housing
Development Company in respect of land bearing
Sy.Nos. 17/1, 18,19,20,26 and 94 situated at
Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore, in all
measuring about 26 acres 12 guntas, the finding
of the learned single Judge is set aside. Liberty is
granted to the petitioners therein to make
appropriate application before the BDA for
deleting the said lands from acquisition in view of
the policy decision of the Government dated
1.6.1995. On such representation the BDA shall
consider the request and pass appropriate orders.
In the event their contention is upheld the said
extent of land shall stand excluded from
acquisition. Otherwise acquisition in respect of the
said lands stand and the BDA is at liberty to form
the layout."
24. In view of the aforesaid, as it was clear that
the landowners viz. Smt. Divya Devi, Ms. Beejakshari
Varman and Sri Sahil Varman, did not, at any point of
time, challenge the acquisition of the lands in question
and on the other hand they had filed even memo before
- 29 -
the Division Bench stating that they had no objection for
acquisition of the lands in question. The Division Bench
had given an opportunity for making representation
seeking deletion of lands in question from acquisition was
only to the THDCL i.e. the writ petitioner in
W.P.No.25807/2004. The Committee has also opined that
the landowners in respect of the lands in question were
not given any such opportunity to seek deletion of the
lands from acquisition which was cleared from the
operative portion of the order as extracted above.
Pursuant to the opportunity afforded by the Division
Bench in the aforesaid judgment, the THDCL has
submitted a representation dated 05.05.2006 to the BDA
seeking deletion of the lands in question from the
acquisition by enclosing copies of documents in support
of its claim. However, the said representation submitted
by the THDCL came to be rejected as per the Resolution
No.92/2006 dated 31.05.2006 and an endorsement dated
15.06.2006 to that effect was sent to the THDCL. It
appears that the THDCL did not pursue further the matter
and thus, the THDCL had given up its claim over the
lands in question.
- 30 -
25. As noted by the Committee, the landowner
Smt. Divya Devi and her children submitted a
representation dated 05.104.2004 to the Land Acquisition
Officer of BDA, requesting to pass an award in their
names and to order payment of compensation to them in
respect of the lands question. Through their advocate,
they submitted further representation on 17.01.2005
requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to issue award
copy in respect of the lands in question stating that they
had handed over the possession of the lands as per
representation dated 25.08.2004. From the aforesaid
representations submitted by the landowners, the
Committee opined that they had not sought for deletion
of the lands in question from acquisition process,
however, they went on seeking payment of compensation
only. This was in line of the submission made by them
before the Division Bench where they had filed a memo
to the effect that they had no objection for acquisition of
the lands in question.
26. Strangely on 13.09.2012, Smt. Divya Devi
and her two children submitted a representation to the
- 31 -
Principal Secretary of the Government, Urban
Development Department, Bangalore seeking deletion of
the lands in question from acquisition process on the
ground that the lands in question were covered by the
guidelines issued by the Division Bench. On the basis of
the said representation, the Urban Development
Department, Governtment of Karnataka, sought report
from the Commissioner, BDA through letter dated
05.10.2012. The BDA submitted a detailed report dated
14.02.2013 to the Government. Thereafter, Smt. Divya
Devi and her children submitted another representation
dated 16.06.2013 to the Principal Secretary of Urban
Development Department seeking to drop the lands in
question from acquisition process which was forwarded to
the Commissioner, BDA, for report and information.
There had been no order passed by the Government
withdrawing the lands in question from acquisition in
exercise of its powers under Section 48 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act. Thereafter, a meeting note was prepared
by the BDA for consideration of the Board, which
however, from the original LA file, it was not forthcoming
as to whether the matter was placed before the Board.
- 32 -
The Committee noted that the original files did not
indicate as to whether the request of the landowners for
deletion of the lands from acquisition process was
considered by the Board of the BDA. The file would
indicate that the endorsements dated 28.10.2013
purported to have been signed by the Commissioner of
the BDA, had been issued to the owners of the lands,
stating the lands in question had been deleted from
acquisition.
27. The Committee thus noted that though before
the Division Bench the owners of the land in question
through a memo filed had made a statement that they
had no objection for acquisition of the land in question,
but after lapse of more than 7 to 8 years they seem to
have made a representation both to the Government as
well as BDA seeking deletion of the lands in question from
acquisition process, on the ground that their lands fall
under the parameters carved out by the Division Bench.
The Committee noted that the land acquisition
proceedings were never challenged by the owners. The
Division Bench gave liberty only to the THDCL to make an
application to the BDA with a further direction to the BDA
- 33 -
to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. If the
request of the THDCL was acceded to, the lands could be
excluded from acquisition, otherwise the acquisition of
the lands in question would stand and the BDA should
proceed to form layout. No opportunity was reserved to
the landowners to seek deletion of the lands from
acquisition process on any of the parameters carved out
by the Division Bench. The owners of the lands having
voluntarily given up their rights to seek deletion of the
lands in question from acquisition process, they would
have no right to seek deletion of lands on the ground that
the lands fall under any of the parameters carved out by
the Division Bench. The conduct seeking compensation
and also requesting for issue of award copies and
payment of compensation would indicate that they never
intended to seek deletion of the lands. Their request after
7 to 8 years after they filed memo before the Division
Bench seeking deletion of the lands was an afterthought
attempt on behalf of some developer and the
Commissioner, BDA obliged them, but the endorsement
was not backed by any resolution of the Board of BDA.
The request submitted by the THDCL pursuant to the
- 34 -
liberty given by the Division Bench, for deletion of the
lands in question came to be rejected by the BDA as per
the Resolution dated 31.05.2006 and thus, the acquisition
of the lands in question stood confirmed and BDA ought
to have proceeded to form layout. But the Commissioner,
BDA without any resolution decided to issue endorsement
for deletion of the lands in question. After the request of
the THDCL for deletion came to be rejected, BDA had no
authority to treat the lands in question from the
acquisition process on the request of the owners. The
Committee, therefore, rightly opined that the question for
deletion of the lands in question was in utter disregard
and contrary to the decision of the Division Bench.
28. The Committee in its detailed finding held that
the deletion of the lands in question from the acquisition
process was in utter disregard and violation of the
judgment of the Division Bench by the then
Commissioner of the BDA by issuing endorsement dated
28.10.2013. Without the matter of deletion of lands in
question having been placed before the Board of BDA and
the matter was fit for recommending for a high level
inquiry into the acts of the then Commissioner of BDA in
- 35 -
deleting substantive extent of lands from the acquisition
process and thereby jeopardizing the right and interest
not only of the BDA but also the hundreds of allottees of
sites from the BDA.
29. The Committee made the following
recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE
(i) The suo moto exercise undertaken by the then
Commissioner of BDA for deletion of the lands in
question viz., Sy.No.17/1 measuring 10 acres 26
guntas, Sy.No.18 measuring 07 acres 14 guntas,
Sy.No.19 measuring 02 acres 21 guntas, Sy.No.20
measuring 04 acres 05 guntas and Sy.No.26
measuring 02 acres 11 guntas of Hennur Village,
vide endorsements dated 28.10.2013 signed by the
Commissioner, BDA, being contrary to the
judgment of the Division Bench and not in
accordance with the decision of Division Bench,
stand quashed, as held at paragraph-91(xx)(1)
under the common order dated 27.09.2021 passed
in W.P. No.51929/2014 and connected Petitions.
(ii) In view of the above, the deleted lands in
question stand restored to BDA for the purpose of
formation of sites in Arkavathi Layout for allotment
to the Applicants in waiting. BDA to take necessary
steps to take over the lands and form Layout of
sites. The sites so formed be reserved for allotment
as alternate sites to the allottees of sites in
Arkavathi Layout, whose allotment got disturbed on
account of subsequent deletion under re-do
exercise/de-notification of the lands;
(iii) BDA to take steps to execute absolute sale
deeds in favour of such of the allottees of sites in
the lands, in question who express willingness to
continue with such allotment. In the event of any of
- 36 -
the allottees of sites in the lands in question
express their unwillingness to continue with the
allotment of sites in the lands in question and
request for allotment of alternate sites, such of the
allottees be allotted alternate sites preferably in
Arkavathi Layout, if sites are available, otherwise in
any other Layout being developed by BDA and
thereafter execute absolute sale deeds in respect of
such alternate sites;
(iv) BDA to complete the process of execution of
absolute sale deeds and/or allotment of alternate
sites as the case may be within a period of 90 days
from the date of receipt of this Report and submit a
compliance report within 15 days thereafter.
(v) BDA to hold a High-level inquiry against the
then Commissioner of BDA, Sri T. Shyam Bhat, for
his suo-moto acts deleting the lands in question
from acquisition process in utter disregard and in
violation of the judgment of Division Bench, by
issuing endorsements dt.28.10.2013 and
recommend to State Government to take
appropriate action against him in that regard. to
Forward this report to BDA for needful
action."
30. This recommendation of the Committee was
challenged before this Court by filing the writ petition and
this Court by the detailed judgment dated 12.12.2025
dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 29 to 31 of the
judgment are extracted hereunder:
29. Therefore, deletion of the lands of the
petitioners in the Notification dated
18.06.2014 was not final, and the Committee
had the mandate to examine various aspects
of deletion/denotification of the lands from
- 37 -
the Final Notification. It may be reiterated
that the petitioners had never challenged the
land acquisition proceedings and in fact they
had filed memo stating that they had 'No
Objection' for the acquisition of their lands
and they had demanded passing of the award
and payment of compensation, they had said,
that they had already handed over the
possession of their lands. Therefore, their
application was not maintainable and they
had no right to make representation
thereafter, for deletion of their lands from
acquisition proceedings.
30. As discussed above, it was M/s. THDCL
which was given opportunity to make
representation and their representation came
to be rejected as stated above. No
opportunity was given to the petitioners to
make the representation, in view of the fact
that they had 'No Objection' for the
acquisition of their lands. The judgment of
the Division Bench had never been challenged
by the petitioners, and it had attained finality.
31. Therefore, we are of the considered
view, that the petitioners' land could not have
been rescued from the land acquisition
proceedings, in view of the facts and
- 38 -
circumstances stated by the Committee in its
report dated 20.05.2024 in proceedings
bearing KNKC No.169/2022, 170/2022,
171/2022, 172/2022 and 176/2022, issued
by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, we
dismiss this writ petition.
No order as to costs.
FINDING:-
31. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel has
submitted that the petitioners were not barred from
making a fresh representation in view of the judgment of
Bondu Ramaswamy's case (supra) and therefore, the
findings recorded by this Court in the impugned judgment
under review, that only THDCL was given an opportunity
to make representation and once the THDCL
representation came to be rejected for deletion of the
land and the THDCL has not challenged the endorsement
dated 15.06.2006. The petitioner would not have the
right to make a fresh representation, is not correct.
32. We have considered this aspect in the
judgment in question quite elaborately. The Committee
has also elaborately dealt with this aspect. We do not find
that there is any error apparent on the face of the record
- 39 -
in the judgment requiring a review. We find no merit in
this review petition and therefore, the same is
dismissed.
33. The present petition has been filed seeking
following reliefs:
"a. To issue writ of certiorari, any other
appropriate writ, or order or direction quashing
impugned order (Annexure-G) dated 20.05.2024, in
proceedings bearing KNKC No.169/2022,
170/2022, 171/2022, 172/2022 and 176/2022,
issued by the 2nd respondent and grant such reliefs
this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
b. Declare that the schedule property has been
dropped from acquisition in the light of the
judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in
W.A.No.2757/2005 & W.A. No.2624/2005 and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu
Ramaswamy and others V/s Bangalore
development authority and other (2010(7) SCC
129) and as per the notification dated 18.06.2014
bearing No. UDD 426/2011.
c. Consequently declare that the order dated
12.12.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.No.16139/2024 is not binding on the
petitioners herein."
34. The petitioners' claim to have purchased the
land in question in the year 2023. Once we have held that
the claim of the owners for deletion of their land from the
acquisition proceedings is not maintainable, the
- 40 -
subsequent purchasers cannot get a better right and
therefore, we find no merit in this writ petition. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petitions, pending IAs, if
any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly,
they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
RKA
