THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2592 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1421 OF 2014 (LA-BDA),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1302 OF 2018 (LA-BDA)
IN WA No. 2592/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER)
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
2. SRI H. CHANDRA REDDY,
S/O.LATE HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
3. SRI.H. KRISHNA REDDY,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
4. BASAPPA REDDY,
SINCE DEAD, REP THROUGH HIS LR’S
4(A) CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
4(B) MANJUNATH.B
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
4(C) RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
5. MR. H. RAMAIAH REDDY,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
6. SRI. N. SRINIVAS REDDY,
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
7. SRI.NAGARAJ REDDY,
SINCE DEAD, REP BY HIS LR’S
7(A) VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE SRI.NAGARAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
7(B) CHETAN REDDY
S/O LATE SRI.NAGARAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
7(C) DHANPAL REDDY
S/O LATE SRI.NAGARAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE
RESIDENTS OF AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
8.
8A.
8B.
8C.
SRI.N.GOPAL REDDY,
SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HIS LRS
A ROOPA W/O LATE N GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ABHISHEK G S/O LATE N GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
SHREE LAKSHMI G D/O LATE N GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.8A-8C ARE
RESIDING AT NO.03/7, SRI.LAKSHMI NIVASA,
AREKER MAIN ROAD, NEAR NGR COMPLEX,
AREKERE, BENGALURU – 560 076.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA.B.,ADVOCATE FOR R2,R5 & R7;
SRI. N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
R3, R6 ARE SERVED V.C.O DATED 13.03.2019,
APPEAL DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R4;
R4(A), R4(B) & R4(C) ARE SERVED;
SRI. CHIRANTHA.S.H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR LR’S OF R7
I.E., R7(A) TO R7(C) &
LR’S OF R8 I.E., R8(A) TO R8(C))
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.7598-7602 &
8174/14 DATED 23/4/14.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
IN WA NO. 1421/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.N.PHANIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O K.N.NAGARAJ,
R/O FLAT NO.306,
SRI CHARITHA GARDENS, NO135,
OPPOSITE CHAMMANNUR JEWELLERS,
MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037.
2. MRS. JYOTHI PHANIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O. K.N.PHANIRAJ,
R/O. FLAT NO.306, SRI CHARITHA GARDENS,
NO.135, OPPOSITE CHAMMANNUR JEWELLERS,
MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037.
3. SRI. P MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O. T.P.PARTHASARATHY,
R/O NO.50, BANASWADI ROAD,
FLAT NO.13/2, I.I.A. APARTMETNS,
COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560 033.
4. SRI. KRISHNA PRASAD RAO,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. SANJEEVA RAO,
ND
R/O NO.322, 2 MAIN, BTM II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 076.
5. SRI T.S. GURUPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE T.T. SRINIVASAMURTHY,
TH TH
R/O NO.333, 38 CROSS, 9 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 069.
6. SRI V.SHIVA SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. VENKOBA RAO,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
RD TH
R/O NO.788, 53 MAIN, 24 CROSS,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 078.
7. SRI. NAGENDRA NARAYANA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NARAYANA BHAT,
TH
R/O. NO.818, 7 MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 078.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
B.D.A,T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARPARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
4. SRI.H.CHANDRAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,BANERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
5. SRI.H.KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
S/O LATE HANUMAPA
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGAU HOBLI, BANERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs:
5(A) MUNIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE H. KRISHNA REDDY
5(B) MANJUNATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE H. KRISHNA REDDY
BOTH RESIDENT AT
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 076.
INSERTED AS PER V.C.O 7.12.2021.
6. SRI.BASAPPA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED REP THROUGH HIS LR’S
6(A) CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
6(B) MANJUNATH.B
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
6(C) RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68-70 YEARS
D/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/O AREKERE VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BANERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
INSERTED AS PER V.C.O DATED 07.12.2021
7. SRI.H.RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,BANERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
8. SRI.N.SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 076.
9. SRI.NAGARAJ REDDY
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS:
9(A) VIJAYA LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY
9(B) CHETAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY
9(C) DHANPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY
ALL ARE R/O AREKERE VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BANERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 09.01.2023.
10. SRI. N. GOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE H. NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 22.03.2022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
SRI. M.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. L.S.CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R7 &
R9, R6(A), R6(B), R6(C), R5(A) & R5(B) ARE SERVED;
SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 7598-7602 AND
8174/2014 DATED 23/04/2014
IN WA NO. 1302/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. DR. ANWAR SOHAIL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O T. SYED ABDUR RAHMAN,
TH TH
R/O #2, 15 MAIN, 17 CROSS,
TH
ROSE GARDEN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 5 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
2. DR. RASHEEDA ANWAR SOHAIL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O ANWAR SOHAIL,
TH TH
R/O #2, 15 MAIN, 17 CROSS,
TH
ROSE GARDEN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 5 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
KUMARAPARK WEST,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
B.D.A., T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
4. SRI. H. CHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/AT AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERGATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
5. SRI. H. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/AT AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERAGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.
DECEASED AND REP. BY HIS LR’S
5(A) SRI. MUNIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE H.KRISHNA REDDY
5(B) SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE H.KRISHNA REDDY
BOTH ARE R/AT R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
AMENDED AS PER V.C.O
DATED 07.12.2021.
6.
SRI. BASAPPA REDDY,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/AT AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERAGATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
6(A)
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
6(B) SRI MANJUNATH.B
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
6(C) RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68-70 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA REDDY
ALL ARE R/AT R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 07.12.2021.
7. SRI H.RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
8. SRI.N.SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
R/O AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
9. SRI. NAGARAJ REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
R/AT AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERAGATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
9(A) VIJAY LAKSHMI
W/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
9(B) CHETAN REDDY
S/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9(C) DHANPAL REDDY
S/O LATE NAGARAJ REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O AREKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 09.01.2023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. L.S.CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6(A-C),
R4, R7, R8 ARE SERVED
PROPOSED R5(A) & R5(B) ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 23/4/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 7598-7602 AND 8174/2014 [LA-BDA]
AND ALLOW THE INSTANT WRIT APPEAL AND II) AWARD
COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
These intra-court appeals have been filed by the
impugning the judgment and order dated 23.04.2014 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.7598-7602 and
8174/2014 (LA-BDA).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to herein by their respective rankings before the writ
court .
I. Facts of Petitioners before the Writ Court:
3. The petitioners, Sri.H.Chandra Reddy and others,
instituted W.P.Nos.7598–7602/2014 and W.P. No. 8174/2014
before the learned Single Judge of this Court questioning the
acquisition proceedings initiated for formation of the
Byrasandra–Tavarekere–Madiwala (BTM) VI Stage Layout.
Their grievance, insofar as the present appeals is concerned,
related to land bearing Sy.No.79, measuring 1 acre and 3
guntas, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, which originally belonged to Hanumappa. The
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
petitioners contended that although the land had been included
in the acquisition proceedings, the scheme for which it was
acquired had not been substantially implemented in respect of
the said land. They relied upon Section 27 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 ('the BDA Act') and sought a
declaration that the scheme had lapsed insofar as their land
was concerned. In the alternative, they sought a direction to
the State Government to issue a notification under Section 48
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (' LA Act '), deleting their land
from acquisition. They also relied upon the proposed deletion of
certain neighbouring lands, including lands in Sy.Nos.78/1,
78/2A and 80 of Arekere Village, and contended that their land
ought to receive similar treatment. The petitioners' case was
that the continued retention of their land under the acquisition
proceedings, despite the alleged non-implementation of the
scheme in respect of it, was unjustified. They accordingly
sought appropriate relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The petitioners further relied upon the history of the
acquisition and the earlier proceedings concerning the same
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
property. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had
initiated acquisition proceedings for formation of the BTM VI
Stage Layout and the petitioners disputed the assertion that
the acquisition had culminated in effective implementation of
the scheme over their land. The records refer to
W.P.Nos.14593-98/1996, disposed of on 10.06.1996 and
W.P.Nos.29554–29559/2003 (LB) disposed of on 30.06.2003,
besides subsequent proceedings concerning the acquisition. The
petitioners also relied upon the draft notification prepared in
September 2010 under Section 48(1) of the LA Act and sought
deletion of their land from the acquisition. Their case was that
the land in question had not been dealt with in the manner
asserted by the acquiring authority and that the statutory
consequence contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act
had followed from the failure to substantially implement the
scheme. The acquisition of Sy.No.79, therefore, formed the
central issue in the writ proceedings. The relief sought was not
merely a direction for consideration of a representation, but a
declaration regarding the continued validity of the acquisition
insofar as the petitioners' land was concerned. The petitioners,
accordingly, sought a decision on the basis of the acquisition
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
notifications, the records relating to possession and the extent
of implementation of the layout.
II. Objections filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3:
5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Bangalore
Development Authority and its Special Land Acquisition Officer,
opposed the writ petitions and sought their dismissal on the
grounds of maintainability, delay and laches, and the alleged
completion of the acquisition proceedings. According to them,
the preliminary notification for formation of the BTM VI Stage
Layout had been issued on 08.09.1987, followed by the final
notification dated 28.07.1990. They specifically contended that
Sy.No.79 of Arekere Village, measuring 1 acre and 3 guntas,
had been included in the acquisition. The notified khatedar was
stated to be Hanumappa, son of Channarayappa. Notices
under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act were issued on
02.08.1990, and objections were submitted by the Khatedars.
The respondents stated that an award in LAC No. 226/1990–91
was passed and approved on 13.07.1994, and that the
compensation was deposited before the Principal City Civil
Judge, Bengaluru, on 19.10.1995 in accordance with Sections
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
30 and 31(2) of the Act. They further asserted that possession
of the land was taken on 12.08.1994 and handed over to the
Engineering Section of the BDA for formation of the layout. The
fact of taking possession was stated to have been notified in
the Official Gazette on 30.08.1994. On these facts, the
respondents maintained that the acquisition had been acted
upon and that the petitioners could not seek a declaration of
lapse after the passage of several years.
6. The BDA further contended that the scheme for
formation of the BTM VI Stage Layout had been substantially
implemented and, therefore, Section 27 of the BDA Act had no
application to the land in question. According to the objections,
sites had been formed in the acquired land and allotted to
various allottees; the BDA had also executed sale deeds and
lease-cum-sale agreements in their favour. The respondents
disputed the petitioners' claim that the acquisition had
remained unimplemented and put them to proof of the factual
assertions made in the writ petitions. They also questioned the
petitioners' reliance on municipal assessment and tax records,
contending that the land in Sy. No. 79 had vested in the BDA
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
pursuant to acquisition and that the BBMP had no authority to
assess the land or collect tax from the erstwhile owners. The
respondents asserted that the land stood with the Engineering
Section of the BDA and that the petitioners had no right to put
up constructions without permission from the competent
authority. They relied upon the earlier proceedings concerning
the same land, including W.P. Nos. 4359–4364/2009, and
maintained that the petitioners had approached this Court after
considerable delay. On these grounds, the BDA and the Special
Land Acquisition Officer sought dismissal of the writ petitions
with exemplary costs.
III. Order in Writ Petition:
7. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 23.04.2014,
considered the writ petitions challenging the acquisition
proceedings relating to the BTM VI Stage Layout, including the
claim concerning Sy. No. 79, measuring 1 acre and 3 guntas, of
Arekere Village. The principal question before the Court was
whether the acquisition, insofar as the petitioners' land was
concerned, could continue when the scheme had not been
substantially implemented over that land. The BDA resisted the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
petitions by relying upon the acquisition notifications, the
award, the alleged taking over of possession and the formation
of sites. The learned Single Judge, however, examined the
position concerning physical possession of the land and the
material relating to the notification under Section 16(2) of the
LA Act. The Court recorded a finding that physical possession of
the land in question had not been taken and also noticed that
the land did not find place in the notification issued under
Section 16(2). The absence of the land from the said
notification was considered along with the question whether the
acquisition had resulted in implementation of the scheme in
respect of the petitioners' property. The dispute was thus
examined not merely with reference to the issuance of the
preliminary and final notifications, but also with reference to
the subsequent steps required to establish that the acquisition
had been acted upon.
8. Upon consideration of the material, the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by order dated
23.04.2014 and declared that the acquisition had lapsed insofar
as the land of the petitioners was concerned. The conclusion
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
was founded on the finding that physical possession had not
been taken and that the land was not reflected in the
notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act, notwithstanding
the BDA's assertion that possession had been handed over to
its Engineering Section. The Court considered the consequence
of the failure to substantially implement the scheme in relation
to the land in question and applied Section 27 of the BDA Act.
The declaration was therefore confined to the acquisition
relating to the petitioners' land and arose from the Court's
assessment of the possession and implementation issues. The
order was adverse to the BDA and the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, who had contested the petitions by relying on the
award, deposit of compensation and alleged formation of sites.
9. Aggrieved by the declaration that the scheme had
lapsed insofar as Sy. No. 79 was concerned, the BDA and the
Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred Writ Appeal No.
2592/2014 under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
seeking to set aside the order dated 23.04.2014.
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
IV. Grounds in Writ Appeal No.2592/2014:
10. The appellants/BDA contend that the learned Single
Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions without properly
considering the acquisition records and the objections filed on
behalf of the BDA. Their principal grievance is that the finding
regarding non-taking of possession was contrary to the steps
taken by the acquiring authority. They rely upon the
preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987, the final notification
dated 28.07.1990, the award approved on 13.07.1994 and the
deposit of compensation before the Principal City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru, on 19.10.1995. They reiterate that possession of
Sy. No. 79, measuring 1 acre and 3 guntas, was taken on
12.08.1994 and handed over to the Engineering Section for
formation of the layout, and that a notification concerning
possession was published in the Official Gazette on 30.08.1994.
According to the appellants, these steps were sufficient to show
that the acquisition had progressed beyond the stage of mere
notification and that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate their effect. They also contend that the writ petitions
were instituted after an unexplained delay of over 25 years
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
from the commencement of the acquisition proceedings and
ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
The appellants accordingly question the finding that the
acquisition had lapsed without due consideration of the
chronology of the acquisition and the material relied upon by
them.
11. They further contend that the finding of non-
implementation was unsustainable because sites had been
formed in the acquired land and allotted to third parties. They
state that sites bearing Nos. 352 to 360 and 396, measuring 30
feet by 40 feet, and sites bearing Nos. 367 to 374, measuring
40 feet by 60 feet, had been formed and allotted in the layout,
and that sale deeds and lease-cum-sale agreements had been
executed in favour of the allottees. They argue that these
transactions demonstrate that the scheme had been
substantially implemented and that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider their effect while applying Section 27 of the
BDA Act. The appellants also raise a grievance that the order
was passed without hearing the allottees, whose interests
would be affected by the declaration concerning Sy. No. 79.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
They refer to the earlier proceedings initiated by the
petitioners, including W.P. No. 14593/1996 and W.P. Nos.
4359–4364/2009, and contend that the prior proceedings and
the subsequent review proceedings, including Review Petition
No. 362/2013, were relevant to the dispute. According to them,
the petitioners had not placed the full history of the earlier
litigation and the allotment of sites before the learned Single
Judge. On these grounds, the appellants seek setting aside of
the order dated 23.04.2014 and dismissal of the writ petitions.
V. Facts in Writ Appeal No 1421/2014:
12. The appellants, Sri K.N. Phaniraj, Smt. Jyothi
Phaniraj, Sri P. Mohan, Sri Krishna Prasad Rao, Sri T.S.
Guruprasad, Sri V. Shivashankar and Sri Nagendra Narayana
Bhat, have preferred the present writ appeal challenging the
order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.7598–7602/2014 and W.P.No.8174/2014, whereby
the acquisition scheme was declared to have lapsed insofar as
land bearing Sy. No. 79, measuring 1 acre and 3 guntas,
situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, was concerned. The land formed part of the acquisition
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
undertaken by the BDA for formation of the BTM VI Stage
Layout. The preliminary notification was issued on 08.09.1987
and the final notification on 28.07.1990. The appellants
contend that an award was approved on 13.07.1994,
compensation was deposited before the Civil Court on
05.10.1995, and possession of the acquired land was taken and
handed over to the Technical Wing of the BDA on 12.08.1994
for formation of the layout, with the fact of possession notified
in the Official Gazette on 30.08.1994. According to them,
residential sites were thereafter formed and allotted, including
Sites Nos. 352 to 360 and 396, measuring 30 feet by 40 feet,
and Sites Nos. 367 to 374, measuring 40 feet by 60 feet.
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 claim Site No. 359 through Smt. Geetha
Murthy, to whom it was allotted by letter dated 19.01.1995 and
possession certificate dated 24.10.1996, and state that they
purchased it under registered sale deed dated 20.08.2004,
Document No. 373/2004-05. Appellant No. 3 claims Site No.
354 under allotment dated 19.01.1995 and possession
certificate dated 25.01.1997, followed by an absolute sale deed
dated 21.11.2009, Document No. 2295/2009-10. Appellant No.
4 claims Site No. 357 through Smt.Pavithra and a sale deed
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
dated 19.01.2012, Document No. 2254/2011-12. Appellant No.
5 and his wife claim Site No. 358 through the original allottee,
Sri B.K. Suryanarayana, and subsequent sale deeds dated
29.01.2004 and 07.03.2005, the latter registered as Document
No. 6882/2004-05. Appellant No. 6 claims Site No. 356 under
an absolute sale deed dated 07.02.2005, Document No.
3322/2004-05, and states that he had constructed a small
house after obtaining a loan from HDFC Bank. Appellant No. 7
claims Site No. 367 under allotment letter dated 05.02.2009
and sale deed dated 05.06.2009, Document No. 500/2009-10.
They rely upon these transactions, the possession certificates,
khata records and payment of property taxes to contend that
the sites were formed and allotted by the BDA and that their
interests were directly affected by the order passed in the writ
petitions, though they had not been impleaded as parties.
13. They further state that, during the last week of April
2014, Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 visited Site No. 359 and found
unidentified persons carrying out digging and levelling work on
their site and neighbouring sites and removing the boundary
markers. They allege that, on enquiry, the persons informed
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
them that the work was being undertaken at the instance of
respondent Nos. 4 to 9, who were the original landowners.
They approached the jurisdictional police to lodge a complaint,
but the complaint was not received; they thereafter approached
the BDA and learnt of the order dated 23.04.2014 passed in
W.P. Nos. 7598–7602/2014 and W.P. No. 8174/2014. In May
2014, Appellant No. 7 also claims that his contractor and
labourers were prevented from cleaning Site No. 367 before
commencement of construction. The appellants state that they
then obtained the certified copy of the order and other records
from the BDA and instituted the present appeal, contending
that the order exposed them to dispossession despite their
having purchased the sites from the BDA or from persons
deriving title through its allotments. They also refer to the
earlier W.P. Nos. 4359–4364/2009, filed by respondent Nos. 4
to 9 seeking consideration of their representation for deletion of
the land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the LA Act. In
those proceedings, this Court, by order dated 02.08.2012,
directed consideration of the representation. The appellants
claim that they were not impleaded in those petitions either,
despite their interest in the sites, and accordingly filed Review
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
Petition No. 362/2013 challenging the order; they state that
the review proceedings were admitted and notices were issued
to the concerned respondents, including respondent Nos. 4 to
9. Their grounds in the present appeal are that the learned
Single Judge passed the order without hearing persons whose
registered sale deeds and possession were affected; that the
BDA’s own statement of objections in the writ petitions
asserted that the scheme had been substantially implemented
and sites had been allotted; and that the fact of handing over
the land to the Technical Wing on 12.08.1994, formation of
sites and subsequent allotments was not properly brought to
the notice of the Court. They further contend that the order in
the earlier W.P. Nos. 4359–4364/2009 had already considered
possession of the land, and that the learned Single Judge ought
not to have reached a contrary conclusion on the question of
possession without considering the earlier proceedings and the
allotment records. On that basis, the appellants seek setting
aside of the order dated 23.04.2014.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
VI. Facts in Writ Appeal No.1302/2018:
14. The appellants, Dr.Anwar Sohail and Dr.Rasheeda
Anwar Sohail, have preferred this writ appeal questioning the
order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. Nos. 7598–7602/2014 and W.P. No. 8174/2014 (LA-BDA),
whereby the acquisition scheme was declared to have lapsed
insofar as land bearing Sy. No. 79, measuring 1 acre and 3
guntas, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, was concerned, and the acquisition proceedings
relating to that land were quashed. The appellants claim that
they are the joint owners of Site No. 352, a corner site formed
in the BTM VI Stage Layout by the BDA. The preliminary
notification for acquisition of lands in Hulimavu and Arekere
Villages was issued on 08.09.1987 and the final notification
followed on 28.07.1990. The appellants state that the award
was approved on 13.07.1994, possession of the acquired land
was handed over to the Technical Wing of the BDA on
12.08.1994 for formation of the layout, and the taking over of
possession was notified in the Official Gazette on 30.08.1994.
Compensation was deposited before the Civil Court on
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
05.10.1995. Their case is that the acquired land was thereafter
converted into residential sites and that, apart from Sites Nos.
352 to 360 and 396, measuring 30 feet by 40 feet, Sites Nos.
367 to 374, measuring 40 feet by 60 feet, were also formed
and allotted. In the year 2007, the BDA conducted an auction
of Site No. 352; the appellants participated in the auction and
their bid was accepted. They rely upon the auction sale deed
dated 16.11.2007, registered as Document No. 6466/2007-08,
and state that they have been in possession of the site since
the purchase. They further state that, in December 2007, they
constructed a boundary wall of about five feet in height at a
cost of approximately Rs.90,000/- and in 2011, put up a
building on the site. According to them, the building has been
let out to tenants from 2012 onwards, with the front portion
being used for commercial purposes and the rear portion for
residence. They rely upon the auction documents, possession
certificate, khata records and property-tax receipts to establish
that the BDA itself had auctioned the site after formation of the
layout and that they had acted upon the purchase by
developing and using the property.
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
15. They further state that, although they had earlier
received complaints from their tenants about certain persons
threatening to interfere with the property, they did not initially
connect those incidents with any pending court proceedings. In
March 2018, they shifted their dental practice to the building
constructed on Site No. 352 and, while carrying out renovation
work for the clinic, began facing what they describe as repeated
harassment by persons in the vicinity. On making enquiries
with neighbouring site owners, they learnt that the interference
was allegedly at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 to 9, who
were the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7598–7602/2014 and W.P. No.
8174/2014. They also learnt that the learned Single Judge had,
by order dated 23.04.2014, declared the acquisition scheme to
have lapsed insofar as Sy.No.79 was concerned, without the
appellants having been impleaded or heard, and that Writ
Appeal Nos.1421–1425/2014 filed in relation to the same
dispute were pending before this Court. The appellants contend
that the order directly affects their property rights, since Site
No. 352 was formed by the BDA and sold to them through a
public auction, and that they had constructed a building and
used it for their dental practice and rental purposes well before
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
they learnt of the order. They further rely upon the earlier W.P.
Nos. 4359–4364/2009, filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 9 seeking
consideration of their representation concerning a draft
notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act. In those
proceedings, this Court passed an order dated 02.08.2012
directing the State Government to consider the representation.
The appellants also refer to the order dated 01.07.2009 in the
same writ petitions, which, according to them, recorded that
possession of the acquired land had been taken by the BDA on
12.08.1994. They contend that the learned Single Judge, while
passing the order dated 23.04.2014, did not consider the effect
of the earlier proceedings, the possession records, the auction
of Site No.352 and the subsequent construction and
occupation. Their grievance is that the order was passed in
proceedings to which they were not parties, although the BDA’s
statement of objections had asserted that the scheme had been
implemented and sites allotted. On these facts, they seek
interference with the order dated 23.04.2014, contending that
their rights as auction purchasers could not have been affected
without an opportunity of hearing.
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
16. We have heard Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel
for the Bangalore Development Authority, Sri.Ganapathi Hegde,
learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.George Joseph, learned
counsel on record for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1421/2014 and
1302/2018, Sri.B.Vinayaka, learned counsel for petitioner
Nos.2, 5 and 7 and Sri.N.Byregowda, learned AGA for the
State. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the records placed
before this Court and the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioners and the respondents, the following point arises
for our consideration:
Whether the petitioners have made out any ground
warranting interference with the order dated
23/04/2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.7598-7602 & 8174/2014 ?
VII. Reasons and Conclusion:
17. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and the respondents and carefully examined the
material on record, including the pleadings in
W.A.No.2592/2014, the records in W.A.No.1302/2018 and W.A.
Nos.1421–1425/2014, and the earlier order passed in W.P.
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
Nos.4359–4364/2009. The controversy cannot be examined
merely by considering whether the acquisition scheme was
implemented within the time contemplated under law. The
principal question is whether the order dated 23.04.2014
declaring the acquisition scheme to have lapsed in respect of
land bearing Sy. No. 79, measuring 1 acre and 3 guntas,
situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, could have been passed without adequately considering
the steps taken by the BDA, the formation and disposal of sites
in the acquired land, and the rights claimed by persons who
were not parties to the writ proceedings.
18. The preliminary notification for acquisition of lands
in Hulimavu and Arekere Villages for formation of the BTM VI
Stage Layout was issued on 08.09.1987, followed by the final
notification dated 28.07.1990. The BDA's case is that the award
was passed and approved in 1994, possession of the subject
land was taken on 12.08.1994 and handed over to its
Technical/Engineering Section for formation of the layout, and
the taking of possession was notified in the Official Gazette on
30.08.1994. The compensation amount was deposited before
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
the Civil Court in 1995. These particulars are reflected in the
records relied upon by the BDA itself and are material to the
question whether the acquisition scheme could subsequently be
declared to have lapsed without examining the manner in which
the land had already been dealt with by the acquiring authority.
19. The delay in seeking relief is also a relevant
circumstance. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P.
Nos. 7598–7602/2014 and W.P. No. 8174/2014 in 2014, more
than two decades after the preliminary notification and nearly
twenty-four years after the final notification. The earlier
proceedings, including W.P.No.14593-98/1996,
W.P.Nos.29554–29559/2003 and W.P.Nos.4359–4364/2009,
together with the representations seeking denotification, form
part of the background against which the subsequent claim
must be assessed. Though each proceeding has to be
considered in the context of the relief sought therein, the
prolonged course of litigation and the intervening
developments, including the formation and allotment of sites,
required due consideration before a declaration affecting the
acquired land was made.
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
20. In this regard, the order dated 01.07.2009 passed
in W.P.Nos.4359–4364/2009 assumes significance. In
paragraph-2 thereof, this Court recorded the submission made
on behalf of the BDA that the land had been acquired in 1990,
the award had been passed on 05.08.1994, possession had
been taken and handed over to the Engineering Section on
12.08.1994, and compensation had been deposited before the
Civil Court. In paragraph-3, the Court noticed the documents
indicating that possession had been taken and the award
amount has also been deposited. The operative direction was to
consider the representations of the petitioners dated
12.11.2002 and 06.07.2004 in accordance with law and on
merits. The earlier order did not finally determine the merits of
the request for denotification; nevertheless, the factual
material recorded therein was directly relevant to the
subsequent proceedings concerning the same land.
21. The subsequent transactions further demonstrate
why the factual position required close examination. In its
statement of objections to W.P.Nos.7598–7602/2014 and
W.P.No.8174/2014, the BDA asserted that the land stood with
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
its Engineering Section, that sites had been formed and
allotted, and that the BTM VI Stage Layout scheme had been
substantially implemented. It also contended that Section 27 of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act was not attracted.
Having taken that stand, the BDA was expected to place before
the learned Single Judge the relevant particulars of the sites
formed in Sy.No.79, including allotments, sale deeds, lease-
cum-sale agreements and auction transactions. These matters
were central to determining whether the acquisition had been
acted upon and whether possession had been taken.
22. The record in W.A.No.1302/2018 discloses that Site
No.352 was auctioned by the BDA in 2007, that the bid was
accepted and that an Auction Sale Deed dated 16.11.2007 was
executed and registered as Document No.6466/2007–08. The
purchasers also rely upon the possession certificate, bid
confirmation, khata records and property-tax receipts, and
plead that they constructed a boundary wall and subsequently
a building. Similarly, the records in W.A.Nos.1421–1425/2014
disclose allotments dating back to 1995, possession certificates
issued in 1996 and 1997, and registered sale deeds and
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
subsequent transfers relating to sites including Nos. 354, 356,
357, 358, 359 and 367. These transactions preceded the
impugned order dated 23.04.2014 and could not be considered
in isolation from the declaration sought by the original
landowners.
23. The BDA was a party to the writ proceedings and
had access to the records relating to the formation, allotment
and auction of the sites. It was, therefore, incumbent upon it to
place the complete factual position before the learned Single
Judge. A general assertion that sites had been formed and
allotted was insufficient when the very issue concerned
implementation of the scheme and the taking of possession.
The omission to disclose the relevant particulars deprived the
Court of a complete picture of the transactions undertaken by
the Authority itself, notwithstanding its reliance upon
substantial implementation of the scheme to resist the writ
petitions.
24. The State Government's consideration of the
representations seeking denotification also had to be viewed in
the light of the existing acquisition records and the rights
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
created in favour of site allottees and purchasers. The earlier
order dated 01.07.2009 directed consideration of the
representations in accordance with law; it neither directed
denotification nor held that the acquisition had failed. In these
circumstances, the request for denotification required an
examination of the consequences for persons who had acquired
sites through transactions undertaken by the BDA before the
order dated 23.04.2014 was passed.
25. The appellants in W.A.No.1302/2018 and W.A. Nos.
1421–1425/2014 were not parties to the writ petitions,
although they claim direct interests in sites formed in the very
land in respect of which the acquisition scheme was declared to
have lapsed. Their claims arise from allotments and auction
transactions by the BDA, registered conveyances, possession
certificates, khata entries and payment of property tax. The
impugned order had the potential to unsettle the basis of their
possession and ownership. Their interests were, therefore, not
merely incidental; they were directly affected by the relief
granted, and ought to have been considered after affording
them an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
26. The matter must also be considered in the light of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which provides that
no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of
law. The registered transactions and allotments undertaken by
the BDA do not, by themselves, immunize the purchasers from
a lawful challenge to the underlying acquisition or title.
However, the rights asserted under those transactions could
not be disregarded while passing an order directly affecting the
land in which the sites were formed. The absence of the
affected site owners from the writ proceedings, coupled with
the failure to place the complete particulars of the allotment
and auction transactions before the Court, is an additional
circumstance that bears upon the sustainability of the
impugned order.
VIII. Effect of taking possession and subsequent
utilization of the land:
27. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
1
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal , reiterated
the legal consequences of taking possession in accordance with
1
(2020) 8 SCC 129
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
the applicable acquisition law. Once possession has been
lawfully taken and the land has vested in the acquiring
authority, a subsequent claim cannot, by itself, divest such
vesting.
28. In the present case, the acquisition records, the
handing over of possession to the BDA's Engineering Section in
1994, and the subsequent formation and allotment of sites are
material to the question of possession and implementation of
the scheme. The allotments, possession certificates and
registered conveyances, including the auction sale deed dated
16.11.2007 relied upon in W.A.No.1302/2018, support the
BDA's case that the acquired land had been dealt with for the
purposes of the layout before the impugned order was passed.
These developments are inconsistent with an unexamined
assumption that the acquisition scheme remained
unimplemented.
29. The principles governing substantial implementation
under Section 27 of the BDA Act were considered by the
Division Bench of this Court in Kanthamma v. State of
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
2
Karnataka . The question whether a scheme has been
substantially executed must be assessed having regard to its
nature and magnitude and the work undertaken and remaining
to be completed. Every delay in implementation does not
amount to failure to execute the scheme, nor can the scheme
be held to have lapsed merely by examining an isolated parcel
of land without considering the implementation of the scheme
as a whole. In the present case, the formation and disposal of
sites in Sy.No.79 were material circumstances requiring
consideration before reaching a conclusion on lapse under
Section 27.
30. In similar circumstances, this Court, by judgment
dated 07.09.2026 in W.A.No.3324/2016 (LA-BDA), considered
the issues relating to taking of possession, subsequent
utilisation of acquired land, substantial implementation of the
BDA scheme and earlier rounds of litigation, and set aside the
order declaring the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed. The
principles considered therein are relevant to the present
2
ILR 1984 KAR 1494
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
appeals, though the conclusion in this case must rest on the
facts and records relating to Sy.No.79.
31. The earlier proceedings and the delay in seeking a
declaration of lapse must also be considered alongside the
subsequent development and disposal of the acquired land. In
Indore Development Authority (supra), the Supreme Court
addressed the effect of stale claims in the context of acquisition
proceedings. Here, the notifications, award, possession records,
deposit of compensation and transactions relating to the
formed sites were all material to the claim raised in 2014. The
learned Single Judge was required to assess the claim in the
light of these circumstances and the legal principles governing
the lapse of an acquisition scheme.
32. The conclusion in the present appeals rests on the
cumulative effect of the acquisition records, the BDA's own
pleadings concerning substantial implementation, the material
relating to possession and deposit of compensation, and the
allotment and auction transactions undertaken well before the
impugned order. These matters were central to the dispute and
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
could not have been overlooked while declaring the acquisition
scheme to have lapsed in respect of Sy. No. 79.
33. The consequences of the impugned order for the
private appellants are also significant. They claim to have
acquired sites through allotments, auctions and registered
transactions traceable to the BDA, obtained possession and
khata records, paid property taxes and, in the case of the
appellants in W.A. No. 1302/2018, constructed a building. Their
asserted rights were placed in jeopardy by an order passed in
proceedings to which they were not parties. Such an order
ought not to have been made without a complete examination
of the relevant records and without hearing those whose
interests were directly affected.
34. A public authority that forms a layout, allots sites,
accepts bids, executes sale deeds and recognises the resulting
transactions in its records must place those facts candidly
before the Court when the acquisition scheme is challenged.
The BDA relied upon the formation and allotment of sites to
resist the writ petitions, but the particulars of the transactions
and the interests thereby created were not fully placed before
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
the learned Single Judge. This omission was material because it
prevented the Court from considering the complete factual
position and the consequences of the relief sought.
35. On an examination of the entire records, we are of
the considered view that the impugned order dated 23.04.2014
cannot be sustained. The material concerning implementation
of the BTM VI Stage Layout in Sy.No.79, the auction of Site No.
352 in 2007 in so far as Appellants in WA No 1302/2018, and
allotment of sites in favour of the appellants in WA NO 1421-
1425/2014 the earlier allotments and registered conveyances,
and the factual observations recorded in the order dated
01.07.2009 in W.P.Nos.4359–4364/2009 required consideration
before declaring the acquisition scheme to have lapsed. The
impugned order was passed without adequately addressing
these material circumstances and without hearing the site
owners whose interests were directly affected.
36. W.A.No.2592/2014, preferred by the BDA and the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, deserves to be
allowed. The acquisition notifications, award, possession
records, deposit of compensation and subsequent transactions
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
relating to the formed sites collectively demonstrate that the
impugned order was passed without adequate consideration of
the material facts and the rights asserted by the affected
purchasers. The order dated 23.04.2014 must accordingly be
set aside and calls for interference.
37. In view of this conclusion, the connected appeals
filed by the site owners arise from the same order and
underlying controversy. Their grievance concerning the effect of
the impugned order stands addressed by the decision in
W.A.No.2592/2014 and no separate adjudication of the
common issues is necessary.
IX. Conclusion:
38. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is
passed:
1. Writ Appeal No.2592/2014 is allowed ;
2. The order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.Nos.7598–7602/2014 and
W.P.No.8174/2014 (LA-BDA) is set aside . Consequently,
the said writ petitions stand dismissed.
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48031-DB
WA No. 2592 of 2014
C/W WA No. 1421 of 2014
WA No. 1302 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010033652014
3. In view of the above decision, W.A.No.1302/2018
and W.A.No.1421/2014, arising from the same order and
concerning the rights asserted by the allottees and
purchasers of sites formed in Sy.No.79, are disposed of
in terms of this judgment. The common issue raised in
these appeals does not survive for separate
consideration.
4. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9