Karnataka High Court
Krishna Murthy. P vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
®
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 324 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2025 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2025 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2025 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1582 OF 2025 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1592 OF 2025 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2025 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1598 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
IN WA No. 324/2025
Digitally
signed by BETWEEN:
VASANTHA
KUMARY B
K 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Location: T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
HIGH BANGALORE-560026
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAK PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560026
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
W/O LATE KAVERAPPA
3. SUKUNDAR RAJ
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
4. SRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
5. SRI SURESH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
6. RAMESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
R-2 TO R-6 ARE R/O
GUBBALALU VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. T A GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT58 YEARS
W/O SRI T N JAVARAYI GOWDA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
R/AT NO.121, MADILU
1ST E MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 TO R-6;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.18271/2016 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
IN WA NO. 319/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 026
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SMT. PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
W/O LATE PAPAIAH
3. P NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
4. P GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
5. P VAJARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
6. P DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
7. P KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
8. P MANJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
R-2 TO R-6 ARE R/AT
GUBBALALU VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. T A GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O SRI T N JAVARAYI GOWDA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
R/AT NO.121, MADILU, 1ST E MAIN
1ST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 TO R-8;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18272/2016 AND
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION.
IN WA NO. 326/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 026
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SRI ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
S/O LATE VAJRAPPA
3. SRI MUNIKRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O ANJANAPPA
4. SRI GOPALKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O ANJANAPPA
5. SRI HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O ANJANAPPA
6. SRI MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O ANJANAPPA
R-2 TO R-6 ARE RESIDENT OF
GUBBALALU VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. T.A. GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O SRI T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA
R/AT NO.121, MADILU
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
1ST E MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 TO R-6;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI VEDACHALA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANTS IN I.A.NOS.2/2025 AND 3/2025)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18273/2016 AND ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
IN WA NO. 347/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 026
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SMT. MUNEERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA
3. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA
R-2 & R-3 ARE R/AT
GUBBALALU VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
BOTH ARE REP BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER SMT. T A GAYATHIRI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O SRI T N JAVARAYI GOWDA
R/AT NO.121, MADILU
1ST E MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 & R-3;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18269/2016 (LA-BDA)
AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 1582/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA MURTHY P
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.79 KENDRIYANAGAR
HOSAHALLI
THALAGHATTAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 109
2. PRAKASH H.N.
S/O NINGOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, BHARATH PRESIDENCY
FLAT NO.104, 2ND MAIN
2ND BLOCK, GORUGUNTEPALYA
BENGALURU-560 022
3. SRI H VENKATESH ACHAR
S/O H SESHAGIRI ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1-17-572, 4H83.B
LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP, DEREBAIL
KONCHADY, MANGALURU-8
4. SRI RAVIAMA NAIK,
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.1386, VEDANGA BUILDING
4TH 'H' BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
GUBBALALA
BENGALURU-560 061
5. SRI DEVARAJU B H
S/O LATE A HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.I-002
STERLING GARDENS APARTMENT
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
257, KUVEMPU ROAD
KEMPAPURA HEBBALA
BENGALURU-560 024
6. SMT. SHILPA B.S.
W/O RAVI K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1431
ANUGRAHA NILAYA
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU-560 061
7. SRI SANTOSH K.B.
S/O LATE BALAJI K.L.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1402, KALPATARU
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
BANASHANKARI 6TH BLOCK
NEAR OM SRI GANGAMMA THAYI TEMPLE
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061
8. DR. B.K. MANJUNATH
S/O B.K. KRISHNA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.2459, 2ND STAGE
16TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
2ND STAND, BENGALURU - 560 078
9. SMT. POORNIMA B N
W/O KUMALESHWARA M N
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A NO.60
KRISHNA ARYA ELEGANCE
FLAT NO.B 205
ASHOKAPURAM MAIN ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB
BENGALURU-560 022
10. SRI KESHAVA MURTHY S N
S/O NARAYANAIAH
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
NO 4, 6TH CROSS
ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT
PAPAREDDY PALYA, NAGARABHAVI
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072
11. SRI N KRISHNANAND
NO.71, VATHSALA, 2ND MAIN ROAD
2ND BLOCK, 'D' GROUP LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 091
12. SRI KULANKAR NEELAKANTA GUNAKI
S/O NEELAKANTA
BEHIND KSRTC 2ND DEPOT
NEHARU NAGAR
HOUSE NO.591, WARD NO.1B
BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA-586 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
4. SRI ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE VAJRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
5. SRI MUNIKRISHNA MURTHY
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
6. SRI GOPALA KRISHNA
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
7. SRI HARISH KUMAR
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. SRI MOHAN KUMAR
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R-4 TO 8 ARE R/AT
GUBBALALA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER
SMT. T A GAYATHRI
W/O T N JAVARAYI GOWDA
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A NO.121, 'MADILU' 1ST E MAIN
1ST BLOCK 2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4 TO R-8;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18273/2016 AND
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
IN WA NO. 1592/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA MURTHY. P
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.79 KENDRIYANAGAR
HOSAHALLI
THALAGHATTAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 109
2. PRAKASH H.N.
S/O NINGOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, BHARATH PRESIDENCY
FLAT NO.104, 2ND MAIN
2ND BLOCK, GORUGUNTEPALYA
BENGALURU-560 022
3. SRI H. VENKATESH ACHAR
S/O H. SESHAGIRI ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1-17-572
4H83.B, LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALURU-8
4. SRI RAVIRAMA NAIK
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.1386, VEDANGA BUILDING
4TH H BLOCK
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
GUBBALALA
BENGALURU-560 061
5. SRI DEVARAJU B H
S/O LATE A. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.1-002
STERLING GARDENS APARTMENT
257, KUVEMPU ROAD
KEMPAPURA HEBBALA
BENGALURU-560 024
6. SMT. SHILPA B.S.
W/O RAVI K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1431
ANUGRAHA NILAYA
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE,
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
GUBBALALA
BENGALURU - 560 061
7. SRI SANTOSH K.B.
S/O LATE BALAJI K.L.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO. 1402
KALPATARU
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
BANASHANKARI 6TH BLOCK
NEAR OM SRI GANGAMMA THAYI TEMPLE
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061
8. DR. B.K. MANJUNATH
S/O B.K. KRISHNA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.2459, 2ND STAGE
16TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
2ND STAND, BENGALURU - 560 078
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
9. SMT. POORNIMA B.N.
W/O KUMALESHWARA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, KRISHNA ARYA ELEGANCE
FLAT NO.B-205, ASHOKAPURAM MAIN ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB
BENGALURU-560 022
10. SRI KESHAVA MURTHY S.N.
S/O NARAYANAIAH
NO.4, 6TH CROSS, ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT
PAPAREDDY PALYA, NAGARABHAVI
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072
11. SRI N. KRISHNANAND
NO.71, VATHSALA, 2ND MAIN ROAD
2ND BLOCK, 'D' GROUP LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 091
12. SRI KULANKAR NEELAKANTA GUNAKI
S/O NEELAKANTA
BEHIND KSRTC 2ND DEPOT
NEHARU NAGAR, HOUSE NO. 591
WARD NO.1B, BIJAPUR
KARNATAKA - 586 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 026
4. SMT. MUNEERAMMA
W/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS
5. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R-4 & R-5 ARE RESIDENTS OF
GUBBALALA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER
SMT. T.A. GAYATHRI
W/O T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.121, 'MADILU', 1ST E' MAIN,
1ST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R-4 & R-5;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18269/2016 AND
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 1593/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA MURTHY P
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.79, KENDRIYANAGAR, HOSAHALLI
THALAGHATTAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 109
2. PRAKASH H.N.
S/O NINGOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, BHARATH PRESIDENCY
FLAT NO.104, 2ND MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
GORUGUNTEPALYA
BENGALURU-560 022
3. SRI H. VENKATESH ACHAR
S/O H. SESHAGIRI ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1-17-572
4H83.B, LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALURU-8
4. SRI RAVIRAMA NAIK
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.1386, VEDANGA BUILDING
4TH H BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
GUBBALALA
BENGALURU-560 061
5. SRI DEVARAJU B.H.
S/O LATE A. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.1-002
STERLING GARDENS APARTMENT
257, KUVEMPU ROAD
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
KEMPAPURA HEBBALA
BENGALURU-560 024
6. SMT. SHILPA B.S.
W/O RAVI K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1431, ANUGRAHA NILAYA
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061
7. SRI SANTOSH K.B.
S/O LATE BALAJI K.L.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1402, KALPATARU
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
BANASHANKARI 6TH BLOCK
NEAR OM SRI GANGAMMA THAYI TEMPLE
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061
8. DR. B.K. MANJUNATH
S/O B.K. KRISHNA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.2459, 2ND STAGE, 16TH MAIN
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
2ND STAND, BENGALURU - 560 078
9. SMT. POORNIMA B.N.
W/O KUMALESHWARA M N
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, KRISHNA ARYA ELEGANCE
FLAT NO.B-205, ASHOKAPURAM MAIN ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB
BENGALURU-560 022
10. SRI KESHAVA MURTHY S.N.
S/O NARAYANAIAH, NO.4, 6TH CROSS
ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT, PAPAREDDY PALYA
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 072
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
11. SRI N. KRISHNANAND
NO.71, 'VATHSALA', 2ND MAIN ROAD
2ND BLOCK, 'D' GROUP LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 091
12. SRI KULANKAR NEELAKANTA GUNAKI
S/O NEELAKANTA
BEHIND KSRTC 2ND DEPOT
NEHARU NAGAR, HOUSE NO. 591
WARD NO.1B, BIJAPUR
KARNATAKA - 586 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M V VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
4. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
5. SRI SUKUNDAR RAJ,
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
6. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
7. SRI SURESH
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
8. SRI RAMESH KUMAR
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R-4 TO R-8 ARE RESIDENTS OF
GUBBALALA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER
SMT. T.A. GAYATHRI
W/O T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.121, 'MADILU'
1ST 'E' MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4 TO R-8;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18271/2016 AND ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 1598/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA MURTHY P
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.79, KENDRIYANAGAR
HOSAHALLI
THALAGHATTAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 109
2. PRAKASH H.N.
S/O NINGOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, BHARATH PRESIDENCY
FLAT NO.104, 2ND MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
GORUGUNTEPALYA
BENGALURU-560 022
3. SRI H. VENKATESH ACHAR
S/O H. SESHAGIRI ACHAR
AGED ABOVE 63 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1-17-572, 4H83.B
LAND LINKS TOWNSHIP
DEREBAIL, KONCHADY
MANGALURU-8
4. SRI RAVIRAMA NAIK
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.1386, VEDANGA BUILDING
4TH H BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU-560 061
5. SRI DEVARAJU B.H.
S/O LATE A. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.1-002
STERLING GARDENS APARTMENT
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
257, KUVEMPU ROAD
KEMPAPURA HEBBALA
BENGALURU-560 024
6. SMT. SHILPA B.S.
W/O RAVI K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1431
ANUGRAHA NILAYA
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061
7. SRI SANTOSH K.B.
S/O LATE BALAJI K.L.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.1402, KALPATARU
4TH 'H' BLOCK FURTHER EXTENSION
BANASHANKARI 6TH BLOCK
NEAR OM SRI GANGAMMA THAYI TEMPLE
GUBBALALA, BENGALURU - 560 061
8. DR. B.K. MANJUNATH
S/O B.K. KRISHNA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.2459, 2ND STAGE, 16TH MAIN
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
2ND STAND, BENGALURU-560 078
9. SMT. POORNIMA B.N.
W/O KUMALESHWARA M N
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, KRISHNA ARYA ELEGANCE
FLAT NO.B-205, ASHOKAPURAM MAIN ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB
BENGALURU-560 022
10. SRI KESHAVA MURTHY S.N.
S/O NARAYANAIAH
NO.4, 6TH CROSS, ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT
PAPAREDDY PALYA
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 072
11. SRI N. KRISHNANAND
NO.71, VATHSALA
2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK
'D' GROUP LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 091
12. SRI KULANKAR NEELAKANTA GUNAKI
S/O NEELAKANTA
BEHIND KSRTC 2ND DEPOT
NEHARU NAGAR
HOUSE NO.591, WARD NO.1B
BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA-586 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 026
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
4. SMT. PUTTAMMA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
5. SRI P. NARAYANAYAPPA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
6. SRI P. GOVINDA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
7. SRI P. VAJARAPPA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
8. SRI P. DEVARAJA
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
9. SRI P KUMAR
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
10. SRI P. MANJU
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R-4 TO R-10 ARE R/AT
GUBBALALA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN-560 061
REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER
SMT. T.A. GAYATHRI
W/O T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.121, MADILU
1ST E MAIN
1ST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU-560 072
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAJARAM SOORAYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4 TO R-10;
SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18272/2016 AND
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. All these intra Court appeals have been filed impugning
the common judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18269/2016 c/w
W.P.Nos.18271/2016, 18272/2016 and 18273/2016.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the
writ Court, for the sake of convenience.
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
FACTS:
3. The dispute relates to the lands in Survey Nos.47/1,
47/3, 47/4 and 47/5 situated at Gubbalala Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which are stated to be owned by
the petitioners. The extent of land in each survey number
under dispute is given hereunder:-
Sl. Survey
No. No. Extent of land1 47/1 35 guntas
2 47/3 35 1/2 guntas
3 47/4 35 1/2 guntas
4 47/5 35 guntas
4. The Government had issued a Preliminary Notification
dated 07.11.2002 notifying 1532 acres and 17 guntas of land
comprised in 8 villages viz., Vajrahalli, Hosahalli, Uttarahalli
Manevartekaval, Bada Manevartekaval, Raghuvanahalli,
Thalaghattapura, Turahalli and Gubbalala for formation of
“Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage by linking existing
VI Stage Layout through Kanakapura-Bangalore Main Road”.
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
5. However, the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 was
only for 750 acres including 142 acres and 1 gunta of land in
Gubbalala Village, which would include the petitioners’ lands in
the aforesaid four survey numbers. In the notification issued
under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Acquisition Act‘), only 395
acres and 37 guntas of land including 39 acres 10 guntas of
Gubbalala Village was notified.
6. The petitioners, through their General Power Attorney
(GPA) holder who is the wife of Sri T.N. Javarayi Gowda,
Member of Legislative Council (MLC), have filed the writ
petitions assailing the Preliminary Notification dated
07.11.2002 and the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 issued
under Section 17(1) and Section 19(2) respectively of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the BDA Act‘). The petitioners have alternatively
sought the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to compensate the petitioners as per 40-60
Scheme in the event of acquisition of the petitioners’ lands was
completed in all respects.
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
7. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and
order, held that the possession of the lands of the petitioners
was not taken in the manner known to law nor the
compensation was deposited before the Civil Court.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions
and quashed the Preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002 and
the Final Notification dated 09.09.2003 and has further set
aside all further consequent actions of the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) in respect of the lands in
question.
8. The petitioners had approached this Court assailing the
acquisition notifications in W.P.Nos.2308-2327/2004 and the
learned Single Judge, vide order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of
the writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to
approach the respondent-authorities for dropping the
acquisition proceedings, if the lands are situated in the built-up
area and other acceptable reasons.
9. In terms of the liberty granted by this Court in the order
dated 06.06.2006, the petitioners had made a representation
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
before the respondent-authorities to delete the lands in
question from acquisition proceedings. The BDA had issued the
endorsements dated 12.10.2007 and 05.10.2007, which were
questioned by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.19994/2007.
This Court, vide order dated 04.12.2009 passed in the said writ
petition, quashed the endorsements and directed the
respondent-authorities to consider the issue afresh in the light
of the judgment passed in W.P.No.16133/2004 and connected
matters, which were disposed of vide judgment dated
06.06.2006.
10. The petitioners contended before the learned Single
Judge that the respondents had not taken possession of the
lands and the petitioners were in possession of the lands even
on the date of the filing of the writ petitions. The possession
mahazar drawn by the BDA was not in accordance with law and
the land owners were not aware of the same. The
compensation amount determined in the award was not paid to
the petitioners nor deposited in the Court. The scheme was not
implemented by utilizing the lands for the formation of the
layout. In the light of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Right to Fair Compensation
Act‘), the acquisition proceedings had got lapsed.
11. The respondents, however, objected to the writ petitions
and contended that the land acquisition proceedings in all
respects for the lands in question were concluded after the
issuance of the preliminary and final notifications for formation
of “Further Extension of Banashankari VI Stage Layout. The
Additional Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award dated
12.12.2003. The award notice was also issued and thereafter,
the possession of the lands was taken on 08.01.2004. The
lands were handed over to the BDA for formation of the layout
and the lands in question had been utilized by the BDA. It was
further contended that the notification issued under Section
16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also published, sites had
been formed and allotted to the respective allottees. It was
further contended that the provisions of Section 21(3) of the
Right to Fair Compensation Act were not applicable to the case
of the petitioners as no conditions prescribed under Section
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act were made out and
even otherwise, the acquisition proceedings were initiated
under the BDA Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act. On
the date of the acquisition proceedings, a mahazar was drawn
which would show that the case of the land owners did not fall
within the guidelines issued by this Court for exclusion of their
lands from the acquisition proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/BDA:
12. Mr. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Murugesh V. Charati, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants/BDA, submits that the
challenge to the acquisition proceedings in the very same
notifications was rejected in the writ petitions filed by the
landowners, being W.P.No.44949/2003 and other connected
matters and this Court specifically held that the challenge to
the notifications did not have any substance. It was observed
that the BDA had already implemented the scheme and 80%
sites were formed by the BDA, which were allotted to the
allottees.
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
13. It is further submitted that the conclusion of the learned
Single Judge in the impugned judgment that the possession of
the lands in question was not taken by the respondent-
authorities by drawing a proper mahazar, was also incorrect.
The physical possession may not be taken, but drawing of the
mahazar and issuance of the notification under Section 16(2) of
the Land Acquisition Act are sufficient to come to the conclusion
that the possession of the lands was taken. The learned Single
Judge, without there being a prayer for declaring the
acquisition proceedings being lapsed in respect of the schedule
property as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
Act and without there being a prayer for quashing of the
notifications, has quashed the notifications issued under the
BDA Act. The learned Single Judge has also overlooked the fact
that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the
Government in the year 2002 were challenged after lapse of 12
years and instead of dismissing the writ petitions, the learned
Single Judge has brushed aside the objection of limitation/gross
delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching
the writ Court.
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
14. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has
overlooked the fact that the scheme has been substantially
implemented inasmuch as the sites have been allotted to the
allottees. In fact, the petitioners did not have any interest in
the lands in question and it is the developer who happens to be
the MLC is fighting the litigation inasmuch as the petitioners
have executed GPA in favour of the wife of the MLC of the
Karnataka Legislative Council. The allottees were not made
parties before the learned Single Judge and without there being
proper and necessary parties, the writ petitions have been
allowed.
15. It has been further submitted that the possession of the
lands in Survey Nos.47/1, 47/3, 47/4 and 47/5 of Gubbalala
Village had been taken over by the BDA and after development
of the land, sites have been allotted and possession has been
handed over to the allottees. The Google Maps from 2000 to
2025 have also been produced by way of an affidavit dated
27.02.2026 filed by the Commissioner, BDA, which would
reflect the formation of layout by the BDA and the houses
having been constructed on the sites allotted. The details of 53
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
allottees of the sites in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.47/1,
47/3, 47/4 and 47/5 of Gubbalala Village have also been
provided in the affidavit dated 27.02.2026 filed by the
Commissioner of BDA. It is further stated that necessary
conveyance deeds have also been executed by the BDA in
favour of the allottees.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/
ALLOTTEES:
16. On the other hand, Mr. Udaya Holla, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by learned counsel Mr. Rajaram Sooryambail
submits that the possession of the lands was not taken from
the petitioners. Nebulous mahazars were drawn and therefore,
the learned Single Judge has correctly held that once the
possession has not been taken as per the procedure known to
law inasmuch as possession mahazars were not properly
drawn, the learned Single Judge was correct in quashing the
land acquisition proceedings and holding that the scheme had
lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.
17. Mr. Udaya Holla has further submitted that till date, the
scheme has not been implemented as no development has
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
taken place over the lands. The submission is that as the
scheme has not been implemented within five years from the
date of the final notification, the scheme has got lapsed under
Section 27 of the BDA Act and the learned Single Judge has
rightly quashed the notifications.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
18. We have considered the submissions.
19. This Court, in the judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed in
W.A.No.944/2024 c/w W.A.No.926/2024, has repelled the
contention that the very same scheme i.e., Banashankari VI
Stage had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act. Paragraphs
12 and 13 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“12. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners had submitted that
the learned Single Judge vide
judgment and order dated 11.04.2016
passed in Writ Petition Nos.57348-
57350/2014 (LA-BDA) in respect of
the same land acquisition proceedings
had quashed the land acquisition
proceedings in respect of the
petitioners in those writ petitions on
the ground of a nebulous mahazar and
the fact that the notification issued
under Section 16(2) of the Land
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSAcquisition Act was not produced. The
Writ Appeal No.1759/2019 against the
said judgment came to be dismissed
vide judgment dated 24.02.2020
primarily on the ground of enormous
delay and laches of 1104 days. The
Supreme Court had dismissed the Civil
Appeal No.5455/2024 and 5456/2024,
which was filed against the judgment
passed by the Division Bench. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of
that case the Supreme Court held that
the BDA had reluctantly filed an intra
Court appeal with delay of 1104 days
and the Division Bench had primarily
dismissed the appeal on the ground of
inordinate and unexplained delay with
some observations regarding failure of
the BDA in taking possession of the
lands or non-implementing of the
scheme was also made. It was also
observed that after the decision of the
learned Single Judge until the intra
Court Appeal was filed, some of the
original owners had altered their
position and third party rights were
created and therefore, in view of the
aforesaid facts the Civil Appeals were
dismissed.
13. In another batch of Writ Appeals
the Division Bench of this Court vide
detailed Judgment and Order dated
03.04.2025 passed in Writ Appeal
No.1026/2006 (LA-BDA) and
connected writ appeals has upheld
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSthat land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the same layout. The
contention regarding the lapse of the
scheme was specifically negatived in
paragraph Nos.31 and 32. It was held
that the acquisition process was
lawful, fair and necessary for urban
planning. Paragraph Nos.31, 32 and
36 of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder:-
“31. The betterment tax levied under
Section 20 of the BDA Act on 657
acres 15 guntas of deleted land was a
justified measure to ensure that those
who benefited from the proximity of
the developed layout contributed
towards urban infrastructure
improvements. The BDA had already
incurred significant expenses on land
leveling, drainage formation, and
other development works, spending
crores of rupees to implement the
scheme. Furthermore, possession of
580 acres 18 guntas was lawfully
handed over to BDA’s Engineering
section for layout formation, while the
remaining land was delayed due to
court-imposed stay orders. The
appellants’ claim that the acquisition
lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA
Act and Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation,
and Resettlement Act, 2013, is
untenable, as possession has already
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSbeen lawfully taken and utilized for
public development. Even the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of
Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v.
Bangalore Development Authority
[(2011) 3 SCC 139], has upheld
that once substantial development has
commenced, acquisition does not
lapse, making the appellants’
arguments legally unsustainable.
32. The procedural fairness of the
acquisition process is further
reinforced by the compliance with
Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act. The
development scheme was prepared in
strict accordance with Sections 15 and
16, and the Final Notification was
issued after obtaining Government
sanction under Section 18(3) of the
BDA Act. Though the appellants have
argued that they were denied a fair
opportunity to present their
objections, but this argument is
factually incorrect, as public hearings
were conducted, their objections were
considered, and necessary
modifications were made. The BDA Act
does not mandate personal or oral
hearings beyond the consideration of
written objections, and this view is
reaffirmed by a judgment of this Court
in the case of D. Hemachandra
Sagar v. State of Karnataka, (1998
SCC OnLine Kar 549) holding that,
as long as a development scheme is
– 39 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSprepared with broad compliance to
Section 16 of the BDA Act, procedural
sufficiency is maintained.
33. ………………… xxxxxxxx…………….
34. …………………….xxxxxxxx………….
35. ………………..xxxxxxxx……………….
36. Thus, the BDA’s acquisition
process was lawful, fair, and
necessary for urban planning. The
statutory process under the BDA Act,
1976, was rigorously followed, and all
procedural safeguards were adhered
to. The deletion of lands was based on
rational considerations, and the public
interest in urban expansion outweighs
the individual interests of the
appellants. Given that the acquisition
has already resulted in significant
urban development, any interference
at this stage would cause irreparable
harm to public planning and
infrastructure development. Accordingly,
we are of the view that the BDA’s
acquisition is legally sound, and the
appellants’ claims requires to be
dismissed in the interest of justice,
equity, and public welfare. In that
view of the matter, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
a) All these writ appeals namely,
i) W.A.No.1026/2006,
– 40 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
ii)W.A.No.1093/2006,
iii)W.A.No.1116/2006,
iv)W.A.No.1164/2006,
v)W.A.No.1167/2006,
vi)W.A.No.1312/2006,
vii)W.A.No.1430/2006,
viii)W.A.No.1844/2006 and
ix) W.A.No.960/2007 filed by the
appellants are dismissed.
b) Consequently, i) the order dated
06.06.2006 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.2066/2004, ii)
the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by
the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.2057 to 2065/2004, iii) the
order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.43126- 43137/2003, iv) the
order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.54766/2003,49850/2003,481
58/2003 & 51132/2003, v) the order
dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.4147/2004, vi) the order
dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.2057/2004, vii) the order
dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.2240/2004 viii) the order
dated 29.08.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.50611/2003 and ix) the order
dated 14.03.2007 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
– 41 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
W.P.No.17452/2005, are hereby
upheld. As a result, the acquisition
proceedings are also upheld.
iii) All pending applications stand
disposed of as a consequence.”
20. In the case of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., vs
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ([2011] 3 SCC
139), it has been held that the BDA Act is a self-contained
legislation. It is a social welfare legislation intended to achieve
social object of planned development under the schemes made
by the authority concerned in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. It has been further held that to the limited extent of
acquisition of land and payment of compensation, the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could be applicable for
the reason that they are neither in conflict with the State law
nor do such provisions exist in the BDA Act. The provisions of
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act are not applicable to
the land acquisition under the BDA Act. Paragraphs 122 to 124
of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“122. To the limited extent of
acquisition of land and payment of
compensation, the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act would be
– 42 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSapplicable for the reason that they
are neither in conflict with the
State law nor do such provisions
exist in that Act. The provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act relating
thereto would fit into the scheme of
the BDA Act. Both the Acts,
therefore, can coexist and operate
without conflict. It is no
impossibility for the Court to
reconcile the two statutes, in
contrast to invalidation of the State
law which is bound to cause serious
legal consequences.
123. Accepting the argument of
the appellant would certainly
frustrate the very object of the
State law, particularly when both
the enactments can peacefully
operate together. To us, there
appears to be no direct conflict
between the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act and the BDA Act.
The BDA Act does not admit
reading of provisions of Section 11-
A of the Land Acquisition Act into
its scheme as it is bound to
debilitate the very object of the
State law. Parliament has not
enacted any law with regard to
development the competence of
which, in fact, exclusively falls in
the domain of the State Legislature
with reference to Entries 5 and 18
of List II of Schedule VII.
124. Both these laws cover
different fields of legislation and do
not relate to the same List, leave
apart the question of relating to the
– 43 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSsame entry. Acquisition being
merely an incident of planned
development, the Court will have to
ignore it even if there was some
encroachment or overlapping. The
BDA Act does not provide any
provision in regard to
compensation and manner of
acquisition for which it refers to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act. There are no provisions in the
BDA Act which lay down detailed
mechanism for the acquisition of
property i.e. they are not covering
the same field and, thus, there is
no apparent irreconcilable conflict.
The BDA Act provides a specific
period during which the
development under a scheme has
to be implemented and if it is not
so done, the consequences thereof
would follow in terms of Section 27
of the BDA Act. None of the
provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act deals with implementation of
schemes. We have already
answered that the acquisition
under the Land Acquisition Act
cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has
taken place. Therefore, the
question of applying the provisions
of Section 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does
not arise. Section 27 of the BDA
Act takes care of even the
consequences of default, including
the fate of acquisition, where
vesting has not taken place under
Section 27(3). Thus, there are no
provisions under the two Acts
which operate in the same field and
– 44 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
have a direct irreconcilable
conflict."
21. The learned Single Judge, while quashing the land
acquisition proceedings on the ground that the compensation
has not been deposited in the Court, has ignored the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case INDORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MANOHARLAL AND
OTHERS ([2020] 8 SCC 129). The relevant paragraphs of the
said decision read as under:-
“186. The proviso uses the
expression that the amount is to be
deposited in the account of
beneficiaries. Earlier under the
1894 Act, there was no such
provision for depositing the amount
in the bank account of beneficiaries
but the method which was used as
per the forms which were
prescribed to deposit the amount,
it was credited to the Reference
Court or in the treasury in the
names of the beneficiaries and as
against the award. It was not a
separate account but an account of
the Reference Court or set apart in
the treasury. The proviso has to be
interpreted and given the meaning
with Section 24(2) as an amount
was required to be paid and on
being prevented had to be
deposited as envisaged under the
1894 Act.
– 45 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
206. The concept of “deposit” is
different and quite apart from the
word “paid”, due to which, lapse is
provided in Section 24 of the 2013
Act. In the case of non-deposit for
the majority of landholdings, higher
compensation would follow as such
word “paid” cannot include in its
ambit word “deposited”. To hold
otherwise would be contrary to
provisions contained in Section
24(2) and its proviso carrying
different consequences. It is
provided in Section 34 of 1894 Act,
in case payment has not been
tendered or paid, nor deposited the
interest has to be paid as specified
therein. In Section 24(2) also lapse
is provided in case amount has not
been paid and possession has not
been taken.
207. In our considered opinion,
there is a breach of obligation to
deposit even if it is taken that
amount to be deposited in the
Reference Court in exigencies being
prevented from payment as
provided in Section 31(2). The
default will not have the effect of
reopening the concluded
proceedings. The legal position and
consequence which prevailed from
1893 till 2013 on failure to deposit
was only the liability for interest
and all those transactions were
never sought to be invalidated by
the provisions contained in Section
24. It is only in the case where in a
pending proceeding for a period of
– 46 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERSfive years or more, the steps have
not been taken for taking
possession and for payment of
compensation, then there is a lapse
under Section 24(2). In case
amount has not been deposited
with respect to majority of
landholdings, higher compensation
has to follow. Both lapse and
higher compensation are qualified
with the condition of period of 5
years or more.
208. It was submitted that mere
tender of amount is not payment.
The amount has to be actually
paid. In our opinion, when amount
has been tendered, the obligation
has been fulfilled by the Collector.
Landowners cannot be forced to
receive it. In case a person has not
accepted the amount wants to take
the advantage of non-payment,
though the amount has remained
(sic unpaid) due to his own act. It
is not open to him to contend that
the amount has not been paid to
him, as such, there should be lapse
of the proceedings. Even in a case
when offer for payment has been
made but not deposited, liability to
pay amount along with interest
subsist and if not deposited for
majority of holding, for that
adequate provisions have been
given in the proviso also to Section
24(2). The scheme of the 2013 Act
in Sections 77 and 80 is also the
same as that provided in Sections
31 and 34 of the 1894 Act.
– 47 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
209. It was urged that landowners
can seek investment in an interest
bearing account, there is no doubt
about that investment can be
sought from the court under
Sections 32 and 33 of 1894 Act,
but interest in government
securities is not more than what is
provided in Section 34 @9% from
the date of taking possession for
one year and thereafter, @15%.
We take judicial notice of the fact
in no other government security
rate of interest is higher on the
amount being invested under
Sections 32 and 33 of the 1894
Act. Higher rate of interest is
available under Section 34 to the
advantage of landowners. It was
submitted that in case the amount
is deposited in the court, it is on
behalf of the beneficiary. The
submission overlooks the form in
which it used to be deposited in the
treasury too, that amount is also
credited in the treasury payable to
the beneficiary specified in his
name with land details, date of
award, etc.
210. There is another reason why
this Court holds that such an
interpretation is reasonable and in
tune with parliamentary intent.
Under the old regime, it was open
to the Collector to fix a convenient
date or dates for announcement of
award, and tender payment. In the
event of refusal by the landowner
to receive, or in other cases, such
as absence of the true owner, or in
– 48 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERScase of dispute as to who was to
receive it, no doubt, the statute
provided that the amount was to
be deposited with the court: as it
does today, under Section 77. Yet,
neither during the time when the
1894 Act was in operation, nor
under the 2013 Act, the entire
acquisition does not lapse for non-
deposit of the compensation
amount in court. This is a
significant aspect which none of the
previous decisions have noticed.
Thus, it would be incorrect to imply
that failure to deposit
compensation in court, under
Section 31(2) would entail lapse, if
the amounts have not been paid for
five years or more prior to the
coming into force of the 2013 Act.
Such an interpretation would lead
to retrospective operation, of a
provision, and the nullification of
acquisition proceedings, long
completed, by imposition of a norm
or standard, and its application for
a time when it did not exist.”
22. We find that the scheme has been substantially
implemented inasmuch as 53 sites have been allotted to the
allottees in respect of the lands of the petitioners. The
conveyance deeds in favour of the allottees have been
registered by the BDA. The Google Maps would also show that
the allottees have put up construction of houses and the roads
– 49 –
NC: 2026:KHC:14960-DB
WA No. 324 of 2025
C/W WA No. 319 of 2025
WA No. 326 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 5 OTHERS
have been formed. Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the scheme has been substantially implemented and there
is no question of applicability of either the provisions of Section
27 of the BDA Act or the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation Act. The award amount has been
deposited in the Treasury and that is not in dispute.
23. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed and the present
writ appeals stand allowed.
In view of disposal of the writ appeals, pending IAs, if
any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
BKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10