SMT. GITA REDDY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.6751 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GITA REDDY
D/O. LATE S.R. BHASKARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.104, R.J. GARDENS
TH
WEST BLOCK, 17 'E' CROSS
ND
2 STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038
REPRESENTED BY HER
GPA HOLDER SRI. VIJAY BABU REDDY
S/O. MR. S.R.VASUDEVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 95, SAKALAVARA VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 083.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE BUSINESS CORRIDOR – 07,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE NOTICES BOTH DATED 20.01.2025 BEARING
NOS.L.A.C/B.B.C-7/P.R.R-2/PART-I/265/2005-06 & NO.L.A.C/B.B.C-7/
P.R.R-2/PART-I/268/2005-06 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B UNDER SECTION 17(5) OF THE
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 IN RESPECT
OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE
PETITIONER AS ISSUANCE OF SAID NOTICES ARE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner impugns the notices dated 20.01.2025 issued
by respondent No.3 under Section 17(5) of the Bangalore
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
Development Authority Act, 1976 [ the Act ] calling upon the
petitioner to submit objection to the preliminary notification dated
12.12.2005 in respect of the schedule properties. The petitioner
has also sought a consequential direction restraining the
respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the said properties.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of land
measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.75/3 (old Sy.No.75/1) and 2 acres 24
guntas in Sy.No.81/2, both situated at Sakalavara Village, Jigani
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District [ the schedule
properties ], having inherited the same from her father, late Sri
S.R. Bhaskara Reddy.
3. The Bangalore Development Authority [ BDA ] issued
preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005 under Section 17(1) and
(3) of the Act proposing to acquire the aforesaid lands for formation
of the Peripheral Ring Road. However, despite the lapse of more
than 15 years, the acquisition proceedings were not taken to their
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
logical conclusion by issuing a final notification, passing an award
or taking possession of the properties.
4. In the meanwhile, the BDA by its resolution dated
24.10.2011, had resolved to drop the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the lands other than the extent of 321 acres 10 guntas
for which a final notification had been issued. The petitioner's
properties were not included in the said extent.
5. Aggrieved by the continued acquisition proceedings, the
petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.7848/2021. The
learned Single Judge by order dated 17.04.2021, allowed the writ
petition and quashed the preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005
and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as the
petitioner's schedule properties were concerned. The said order
was challenged by BDA in Writ Appeal No.215/2022. The Division
Bench by judgment dated 19.10.2022, dismissed the writ appeal
and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The BDA
thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary
No.12708/2023 which was dismissed by order dated 04.05.2023.
Consequently, the order quashing the acquisition proceedings has
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
attained finality. The order passed in the case of the petitioner is
known as the Gita Reddy's case.
6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid judicial orders, respondent
No.3 issued notices dated 20.01.2025 under Section 17(5) of the
Act, calling upon the petitioner to submit objection to the
preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner is before this Court.
CONTENTIONS
7. Sri Jayakumar S Patil, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits that the impugned notices are wholly
without jurisdiction and contrary to the orders passed by this Court
which have attained finality. It is further submitted that, the order of
the learned Single Judge, wherein the preliminary notification dated
12.12.2005 and all the consequential acquisition proceedings were
quashed in respect of the petitioner's property, was affirmed by the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.215/2022 and the SLP preferred
by the BDA was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
therefore the respondents are bound by the earlier judicial orders
and impugned notices being founded upon the preliminary
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
notification which no longer survives in law insofar as the
petitioner's properties are concerned are liable to be quashed.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
8. The question that arises for consideration is,
“whether respondent No.3 was justified in issuing
the impugned notices dated 20.01.2025 under Section
17(5) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to submit
objection to the preliminary notification dated
12.12.2005, notwithstanding that the said notification
and consequential acquisition proceedings in respect of
the petitioner's property had already been quashed by
this Court and order had attained finality.”
9. The material on record would disclose that the petitioner had
earlier challenged the preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005 in
Writ Petition No.7848/2021. The learned Single Judge by order
dated 17.04.2021 taking note of the resolution dated 24.10.2011
passed by the BDA and the failure of the respondents to complete
the acquisition proceeding despite the lapse of more than 15 years,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
allowed the writ petition and expressly quashed the preliminary
notification dated 12.12.2005 and all acquisition proceedings
pursuant thereto insofar as the petitioner’s schedule properties
were concerned.
10. The said order was affirmed in Writ Appeal No.215/2022 by
judgment dated 19.10.2022. The Division Bench while dismissing
the appeal preferred by the BDA observed that even in the
absence of a prescribed period of limitation for issuance of a final
notification, the statutory power was required to be exercised within
a reasonable time. It was further observed that the respondents
had failed to furnish any cogent explanation for not completing the
acquisition proceedings for more than 17 years.
11. It is relevant to note that BDA had specifically relied upon the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the
Peripheral Ring Road project in Miscellaneous Application
Nos.1614-1616/2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663/2018.
Notwithstanding the said contention, the Division Bench declined to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61051
WP No. 6751 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010123852025
12. The judgment of the Division Bench was thereafter carried
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No.12708/2023
which came to be dismissed on 04.05.2023. The order dated
17.04.2021 has attained finality and continues to bind the
respondents.
13. In light of the aforesaid undisputed position, the issuance of
the impugned notices dated 20.01.2025 by respondent No.3 calling
upon the petitioner to submit objections to the preliminary
notification dated 12.12.2005 cannot be sustained. In these
circumstances, the impugned notices being found on the
preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005 which no longer survives
insofar as the petitioner's properties are concerned, are therefore
without any subsisting legal foundation. Accordingly, the Writ
allowed.
Petition is The impugned notices dated 20.01.2025
issued by respondent No.3 under Section 17(5) of the Act are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.3