S LAKSHMI NARAYANA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 19571 OF 2026 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. S. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
S/O SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY G
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT NO.362/332,
ST
1 CROSS, BBMP OFFICE ROAD,
NEAR BBMP OFFICE, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE NORTH - 560 064
2. Y. S. LAKSHMINARASIMHAGUPTA
S/O SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY G
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT NO.362/332,
ST
1 CROSS, BBMP OFFICE ROAD,
NEAR BBMP OFFICE, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE NORTH - 560 064
3. VEENA M
W/O Y.N. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT VILLA NO.1,
M.V. SUNRIDGE COURTYARD,
ADDEVISHWANATHAPURA ROAD,
RAJANAKUNTE,
BANGALORE - 560 064
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
4. MANJUNATH Y. N.
S/O NAGARAJ Y.A.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT VILLA NO.1,
M.V. SUNRIDGE COURTYARD,
ADDEVISHWANATHAPURA ROAD,
RAJANAKUNTE,
BANGALORE - 560 064
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
5. VCA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2,
RD
3 FLOOR, MATADAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
MLA LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MANINDER SINGH
6. MANINDER SINGH
S/O LATE RAM KISHAN SINGH
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.2, MAIN ROAD,
MLA LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
MS. SANJEEVINI P. NAVADGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AN AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ACT, 1976
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRECINCTS,
TH
5 MAIN RD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560020
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TO (PRR - 1), BDA
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRECINCTS,
TH
5 MAIN RD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560020
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. M.S.SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.H.
HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.BDA/SLAO-2/180/2020-
2021 DATED 18.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS'
LANDS IN SL. NO.97, 111 AND 113 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the preliminary notification bearing
No.BDA/SLAO-2/180/2020-2021 dated 18.04.2022 issued by
respondent No.2 in so far as relates to the land bearing
Sy.Nos.8, 8/1, 67/1 and 68/1 situate at Venkatala Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk. They have also sought for a
writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order
dated 09.07.2026 bearing No.BEMAPRA/Vibhuswa/(BBC-
01)(PRR-1)/40/2025-26 by which they were informed that
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
issue of publishing a final notification in the light of the orders
passed in W.P.No.31440/2025 would be considered.
2. (i) The petitioners contend that they are the
owners of the aforesaid lands amongst which, land in
Sy.Nos.67/1 and 68/1 were converted for non-agricultural use.
Later the respondent No.2 published a notification dated
18.04.2022 under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Bengaluru
Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as
'BDA Act" for short) proposing to acquire portion of the
aforesaid lands for the purpose of a "Peripheral Ring Road Part
- 1 (PRR-1)" "Clover Leaf". They claim that though the
preliminary notification was issued in the year 2022, no steps
are taken till date by the respondents for issuance of a final
notification. They contend that earlier a preliminary notification
dated 24.08.2020 was issued by the State Government under
the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, 1966 to acquire portion of the aforesaid lands for the
purpose of construction of Bengaluru Metro Rail Phase II Airport
from K.R. Puram Station to Kempegowda International Airport
Station.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
(ii) They contend that the engineering section of the
respondent noticed that on account of construction of a Metro
Station pursuant to the acquisition referred supra, there was a
realignment of the road and change in the plan for the
Peripheral Ring Road, as a result of which the land of the
petitioners was no longer required. They contend that although
the lands of the petitioners was notified for acquisition, only
0.75 guntas was required as against the original requirement of
3 acres 12.55 guntas. The petitioners therefore submitted a
representation dated 03.10.2025 requesting withdrawal of the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the notified lands,
excluding 0.75 guntas. As they did not receive any reply from
the respondent No.1, they submitted a representation dated
03.10.2025 before the respondent No.3 to drop the acquisition.
However, there was no response from the respondent No.3 as
well. Therefore, the petitioners filed W.P.No.31440/2025
challenging the preliminary notification dated 18.04.2022
insofar as it related to their lands. The said writ petition was
disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider
their representation, keeping in view the report of the engineer
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
dated 05.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders strictly in
accordance with law. Following the above, the respondents
issued the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 stating that the
request of the petitioners would be considered and a final
notification would thereafter be issued.
3. Being aggrieved by issuance of the preliminary
notification and the endorsement issued by the respondent
No.1, the present writ petition is filed.
4. (i) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submits that in view of the acquisition of lands by the State
Government for the purpose of Bangalore Metro Rail Phase II
Airport, the respondents have changed the design of the
Peripheral Ring Road and consequently shifted the 'Clover Leaf'
to another location, as a result of which the lands of the
petitioners is no longer required. He contends that the revised
design is already incorporated in the tender schedule and
tenders are invited to execute the work and contracts are
already awarded. He therefore submits that the preliminary
notification cannot be allowed to continue, as the same casts a
cloud over the title of the petitioners to the aforesaid lands. He
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
therefore submits that since the lands in question is not
required for the PRR-1 "Clover Leaf", the impugned notification
be quashed insofar as it relates to the lands belonging to the
petitioners.
(ii) He also contends that to allay the apprehension of
the respondents that design may be changed in future, in which
event the lands of the petitioners may be required, the
petitioners undertake to keep the lands in question intact for a
period of 06 months within which time, the respondents may
consider whether any change in the design is necessary. In this
regard, the petitioners have filed an affidavit before this Court,
the relevant portions are extracted below:
"5. Without prejudice to what is stated
above, I am now to state that the Petitioners
undertake that in the event of this Hon'ble Court
quashes the preliminary notification, the
Petitioners are ready and would undertake that
they have no objection for the lands by the
Bengaluru Development Authority/Respondent
No.2 in so far as it required and as described, in
the Engineering note referred to above.
However, in the event and in future, if the
Bangalore Development Authority/Respondent
No.2 or the State Authorities require the
Petitioner's land for Clover Leaf, beyond what is
referred to as above Petitioners would have no
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
objection for parting with their land, subject to
payment of suitable compensation in accordance
with law.
6. I am to further state that I will undertake on
behalf of myself and on behalf of others that we
will not change the nature of the land for a
period of six months from today, so as to make
it available to Bangalore Development
Authority/Respondent No.2 or State Authorities
in the event they require the land in future for
the Clover Leaf mentioned above. I also deem it
necessary that in the mean while, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to grant the Petitioners
and others to move such applications as are
required for seeking permission of the authorities
concerned for obtaining plan development, plan
sanction, etc. This would be necessary because
the Petitioners have entered into a joint
development agreement for development of the
said lands.
7. Notwithstanding such applications being filed
or permissions being granted, Petitioners
reiterate that they would not change the nature
of the land for a period of six months from this
day.
5. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent
Nos.2 and 3, who have filed their statement of objections
contending that once a preliminary notification is issued for the
purpose of a development scheme, the respondent No.2 does
not have any inherent power to drop, release or exclude
properties from acquisition, particularly in the absence of any
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
specific statutory provision empowering it to do so. It is
contended that the statutory scheme contemplates further
consideration and action in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the Act, culminating in the issuance of a final
notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act. It is claimed that
the respondent No.2 has acted strictly in accordance with the
statutory scheme and issued the endorsement dated
09.07.2026 after duly considering and complying with the
directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.31440/2025.
(ii) It is also contended that the reliance placed by the
petitioners on certain internal correspondence of BDA cannot
enure to their benefit, as the said note was neither approved by
the competent authority nor culminated in any decision by the
respondent No.1 and therefore cannot be treated as final or
binding. It is claimed that the correspondence of the
engineering department of the respondent dated 05.04.2025,
in the absence of any corresponding approval or decision by the
competent authority, has no legal efficacy and cannot be relied
upon to contend that the lands in question are validly deleted
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
or released from the sanctioned scheme or that the acquisition
proceedings have otherwise ceased to operate.
(iii) As far as the contention that the design of the PRR -
I "Clover Leaf" has changed in view of the acquisition of lands
for Bangalore Metro, it is contended that the lands in question
were proposed for acquisition by the respondent No.2 for the
purpose of implementation and development of the PRR-1,
including the proposed "Clover Leaf" interchange which
constitutes an integral part of the planned infrastructure and
transportation network of Bangalore City. The proposed
acquisition is undertaken in furtherance of the statutory
functions, duties and development objectives of the respondent
No.2 under the provisions of the BDA Act, with the object of
facilitating planned and orderly development, improving
connectivity and providing essential road and transportation
infrastructure in and around Bangalore.
(iv) It is claimed that the proposed "Clover Leaf"
interchange is an integral component of the Peripheral Ring
Road-1 project. Similar such contentions are urged to contend
that the notification issued cannot be set at naught at the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
instance of the petitioners, more particularly, when the project
is not fully finalized.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents,
while reiterating the contentions urged in the statement of
objections, submits that it is too premature to conclude that
there is a change in the design of the Peripheral Ring Road-1
"Clover Leaf" and consequently, the lands in question are
required to be excluded from acquisition. He contends that the
design is dynamic and may change depending upon various
circumstances and that the petitioners cannot compel the
respondents to exclude the lands from acquisition merely on
the ground that the design has changed for the time being. He
therefore submits that if the design is finalized and work is
undertaken to construct the "Clover Leaf" at the changed
location, automatically the respondents would take decision to
exclude the lands from acquisition.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
8. The notification impugned in this writ petition is in
the nature of a proposal and cannot, stricto sensu, be
challenged before a Court of law. However, in the instant case,
it is seen that the lands in question was required for the
purpose of constructing a PRR-1 "Clover Leaf". The respondents
have not disputed the fact that the land of the petitioners in the
very same location was notified by the State Government for
the purpose of Bengaluru Metro Rail Phase-II Airport Project.
Consequently, the respondents have taken a decision not to
construct the PRR-1 "Clover Leaf" at the present location but
have shifted the same to a different location. Therefore, the
land belonging to the petitioners cannot continue to remain
under the shadow of acquisition, when the respondents have
decided to shift the proposed "Clover Leaf" to a different
location and proceed with the acquisition proceedings.
9. Now that the respondents have entrusted the work
for construction of the PRR-1 "Clover Leaf" to a contractor and
the contract schedule also indicates that the design of the PRR-
1 "Clover Leaf" is shifted from the property of the petitioners
notified in the preliminary notification impugned in this petition
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
to a different location, it would be just and proper to set aside
the notification in so far as it relates to the land belonging to
the petitioners. However, having regard to the concerns
expressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 that there could be a change in the design, the
same is taken care of by the affidavit filed by the petitioners
wherein they have undertaken to keep the land intact for a
period of 06 months, if the respondents decide that they
require the said land for the project within the said period they
may proceed in accordance with law. In view of the above, the
writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:
allowed
(i) The writ petition is . The impugned
notification bearing No.BDA/SLAO-2/180/2020-201 dated
18.04.2022 insofar as the petitioners' land is concerned is kept
in abeyance. The petitioners are directed to keep the aforesaid
land intact without undertaking any developmental activity for
a period of 06 months, within which time, the respondent Nos.2
and 3 may take a decision regarding the need of the land in
question for the purpose of constructing the PRR-1 "Clover
Leaf".
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58736
WP No. 19571 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010434172026
(ii) If the respondents consider that the land is
required, the respondents may take necessary action in
accordance with law. If the respondents do not decide upon the
question whether the subject land is needed for the purpose of
PRR-I "Clover Leaf" within 06 months from the date of this
order, then the preliminary notification bearing No.
No.BDA/SLAO-2/180/2020-201 dated 18.04.2022 shall stand
quashed. In that event, entries of the name of respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in the revenue records of the land in question shall
stand deleted and the name of the petitioners shall stand
restored.
(iii) In view of disposal of main petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9