SMT SHAHID UNNISA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 24487 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHAHID UNNISA
W/O. SHAKEEL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.303, 4 'D' CROSS,
RD
HRBR LAYOUT, 3 BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560043.
…PETITIONER






(BY SRI. RAMA MOORTHY B.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BANGALORE-560001.

3.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
TH
5 FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020.
…RESPONDENTS




Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


(BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. MURUGESH CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2,
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.HUD/238/MNX/79 DATED
28.05.1984 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION DATED 26.07.1984 A COPY OF PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-H WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY WAY OF
ISSUE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.HUD/368/MNX/86 DATED
23.10.1986 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 18.12.1986
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-J HAVE RESPECTIVELY HAVE
LAPSED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES IN QUESTION / SCHEDULE
PROPERTIES AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT OF
FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (CENTRAL ACT
NO./30 OF 2013), AND CONSEQUENTLY ANNEXURE-H AND J HAVE
BECOME INCOPERATIVE, IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY /
PROPERTY IN QUESTION I.E., HOUSE PROPERTY (OLD HOUSE
PROPERTY) BEARING NO.14, PROPERTY NO.36/1 IN SY.NO.36/1,
WARD NO.87 SITUATED AT BENNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM
HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, FORMERLY BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK, NOW THIS PROPERTY COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE
MEASURING EAST TO WEST 62 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 55
FEET, TOTALLY MEASURING 3410 SQ.FEET.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by
the respondent No.2 vide preliminary notification bearing
No.HUD/238/MNX/79 dated 28.05.1984 and the final
notification bearing No.HUD/368/MNX/86 dated 23.10.1986
have lapsed in respect of the site bearing No.14 in Sy.No.36/1,
Ward No.87 of Benniganahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk. She has also sought for declaration that the acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred
to as ‘the Act, 2013’) and the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act have become inoperative.

2. (i) The petitioner contends that the land bearing
Sy.No.36/1 of Krishnaiahnapalya, Benniganahalli Dhakle,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, belonged to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


Mr.Pillappa, who died leaving behind his wife and three
daughters named Smt.Munivenkatamma, Smt.Lakshmamma
and Smt.Yeshodhamma. The revenue records were transferred
to the name of the wife of Pillappa. Later, after the death of the
wife of Pillappa, there was an oral partition amongst the three
daughters in terms of which the site bearing No.36/1 formed in
Sy.No.36/1 fell to the share of Smt.Lakshmamma. She
executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr.M.Babu, who
executed a sale deed dated 27.01.2015 in favour of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner contends that she applied for change
of khata and the same was transferred to her name in the
records of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(henceforth referred to as ‘BBMP’). She claims that she has
paid the property tax in respect of the aforesaid property to the
BBMP. She contends that the site is provided with amenities
such as electricity, etc. She contends that she has obtained a
plan for construction of a building and the license for
construction of the building. She contends that she has paid the
betterment charges to the erstwhile City Municipal Corporation

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


(henceforth referred to as ‘CMC’), Mahadevapura. She claims
that she is in possession of the property till date and that the
acquisition of the aforesaid land bearing Sy.No.36/1 has lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as the respondents have
not taken any steps to take over possession of the property or
pay compensation.
(iii) She contends that the preliminary notification was
issued in respect of the land in Sy.No.36/1 on 28.05.1984
followed by a final notification dated 23.10.1986 but, no steps
are taken till date for taking over possession and formation of
‘New Layout of the East of NGEF’. She therefore contends that
the acquisition is liable to be declared as having lapsed. This
apart, she contends that the lands in and around the land in
Sy.No.36/1 are fully developed and therefore, the scheme
cannot be implemented by the respondents and hence, the
acquisition is liable to be declared as lapsed under Section 27 of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth
referred to as ‘the BDA Act’).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
above contentions and submitted that though the acquisition

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


was initiated in the year 1984, no steps were taken to take
over possession of the property mentioned above and hence,
the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013. Even otherwise, he contends that since the petitioner is
in possession, she is entitled to the benefit of Section 38-D of
the BDA Act.

4. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who contend that the scheme
is fully implemented and the question of the acquisition lapsing
either under Section 27 of the BDA Act or under Section 24(2)
of the Act, 2013 does not arise. He contended that the
acquisition is under the provisions of the BDA Act and
therefore, the provisions of the Act, 2013 is not applicable. He
further contends that the petitioner being a subsequent
purchaser is not entitled to assail the notification on any ground
including the ground that the acquisition has lapsed. He relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
.
V Chandrasekaran and Another vs. Administrative Officer
and Others – (2012) 12 SCC 133 and Delhi Development
Authority vs. Dayanand and Others - (2022) 18 SCC 83.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


He therefore contends that the petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the notifications.

5. As regards the claim of the petitioner that she is
entitled to the benefit of Section 38-D of the BDA Act, he
contends that the petitioner is bound to establish that she was
in possession of the property 12 years prior to Section 38-D
coming into force. He contends that the petitioner has
purportedly purchased the property only in the year 2015 and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under
Section 38-D of the BDA Act. He therefore contends that no
reliefs can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the
land bearing Sy.No.36/1 of Benniganahalli Dhakle, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, was notified for acquisition in the
year 1984 and that a final notification was issued in the year
1986. The petitioner has approached this Court in the year

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


2017 i.e., after nearly 33 years from the date of the preliminary
notification challenging the notification on the ground that the
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and
also on the ground that the lands in and around the land in
Sy.No.36/1 is fully developed and therefore, the acquisition has
lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner being a purchaser in the
year 2015, cannot assail the notification on the ground that the
acquisition has lapsed either under Section 27 of the BDA Act
or under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. There is nothing on
record to show that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not
implemented the scheme within the time permitted under
Section 27 of the BDA Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim that the scheme has lapsed. The acquisition being one
under the provisions of the BDA Act and not under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition
cannot lapse by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017



9. As regards the contention that she is entitled for
the benefit of Section 38-D of the BDA Act, it is relevant to note
that Section 38-D of the BDA Act was inserted into the BDA Act

on 10.07.2020 and it is incumbent upon the person claiming
the benefit of Section 38-D of the BDA Act to establish that he
or she was in physical possession of the property at least 12
years prior to Section 38-D coming into force. It should also be
established that the property is incapable of being used by the
authority for the purpose of the layout.

10. A perusal of the sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioner shows that the sale deed was executed on
27.01.2015 and there is no mention that a structure existed on
the property much prior to the execution of the sale deed. This
Court in terms of an order dated 28.09.2026 had called upon
the petitioner to place on record documents to show that
construction existed on the property in question in the year
2018 itself. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
after securing instructions submitted that there are no
documents available to establish that construction existed on
the property in the year 2008. Under the circumstances, the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56372
WP No. 24487 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010548382017


petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under Section 38-D of
the BDA Act.

11. Consequently, no reliefs can be granted to the
petitioner in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed. It is open for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take
necessary steps to recover possession of the property, which
shall be in accordance with law.


Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE

BKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94