SRI J.V. VENKATESH vs THE COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
®

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1766 OF 2024 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI J.V. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE SRI. N. VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

2. SRI. J.V. SRINIVAS
S/O. LATE SRI. N. VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

R/AT NO.130, 4TH CROSS,
OPP. VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE,
SUNDARANAGARA, GOKULA,
MATTIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054.
…APPELLANTS










(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA),
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.

2. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA),
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.

3. M/S. TOWNSHIP PROMOTERS
NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYAN COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR,

Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 001.
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. P. ASHWIN PAI.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDAN K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3;
SRI. S.B.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)


THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.8405/2024 (BDA) AND CONSEQUENTLY,
ST
DIRECT THE 1 RESPONDENT/BDA TO IMPLEMENT THE
RESOLUTION NO.133/2019 DATED 17.01.2020 AND
18.01.2020 PASSED BY THE BDA ON THE REPORT OF THE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA ACT WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE
DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT AND ALSO BY THE APEX
COURT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 21.07.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

PREFACE:
1. This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated
07/11/2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.8405/2024 (BDA). The Appellants, who were the petitioners
before the Learned Single Judge, sought to quash the order
dated 05/03/2024 issued by Respondent No.1, the Bangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA'), and
for a direction to Respondents No.1 and 2 to implement
Resolution No.133/2019 dated 17/01/2020 and 18/01/2020.
The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, holding
that the Appellants failed to demonstrate infringement of their
rights or violation of law. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal,
the Appellants are before this Division Bench.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The factual narrative leading to the present appeal is
intricate and spans over two decades, involving multiple rounds
of litigation and administrative decisions. The Appellants are

- 4 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


the owners of 3 acres of land in Sy. No.1A, Block 11, Jakkur
Plantation Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk
(hereinafter referred to as 'Appellants' land'). This land is
admittedly surrounded by lands belonging to Respondent No.3,
measuring approximately 25 Acres 16 Guntas in Sy. No.1A and
1B of the same village. The primary dispute revolves around
the provision of adequate access to the Appellants' land from
the main road.
2.1. Initial Access and Lokayuktha Intervention:
2.1.1 In 1995, the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan
(CDP) indicated a 60 ft (18 meters) wide road access to the
Appellants' land. The Appellants' father, Sri. N. Veeranna,
acquired the land in 1983 and subsequently got it converted for
non-agricultural purposes in 1999. Due to obstructions and lack
of proper access, Sri. N. Veeranna filed a complaint before the
Karnataka Lokayuktha in 2006 against the BDA Commissioner
and Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban. Simultaneously,
he filed W.P. No.12884/2006 before this Court, which was
allowed on 13/12/2006, directing the Respondents to consider
his representations.

- 5 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


2.2. Lokayuktha Report and Judicial Affirmation:
2.2.1 The Lokayuktha, after due inquiry, passed a
comprehensive report under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act on 28/07/2011 (COMPT/LOK/BCD-279/2006).
This report contained crucial directions, inter alia: (i) To direct
the Commissioner, BDA, to withdraw permission issued to M/s
Abhishek Developers (partner of Respondent No.3) for
developments in Sy. No.1A of Jakkur Plantation. (ii) To direct
the Commissioner, BDA, to demolish the compound constructed
without permission. (iii) To direct the Commissioner, BDA, to
submit and obtain Government approval for the Area Plan for
lands in Sy. No.1A of Jakkur Plantations, showing linkage
facilities to the surrounding area, including the complainant's
area . The report specifically referred to the road network plan
prepared by the BDA Town Planning Member on 08/10/2009,

which provided for an 18 meters wide road.
2.2.2 Respondent No.3 challenged this Lokayuktha report in
W.P. No.5434/2012 (GM-KLA) before a Division Bench of this
Court. On 26/03/2014, this Court disposed of the writ petition,
holding that while Lokayuktha directions are not a decree, they

- 6 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


must be implemented in their "true spirit," and granted one
month for BDA to take action and report compliance.
2.2.3 Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No.3 preferred SLP
No.28000/2014 before the Supreme Court of India. The
Supreme Court, by its order dated 12/07/2016, dismissed the
SLP, stating, "Heard. No ground for interference is made out to
exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly." This
dismissal attained finality to the Lokayuktha's report and the
Division Bench's directions.
2.3. BDA Resolutions and Subsequent Reversal:
2.3.1 Following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP, the
BDA passed Resolution No.133/2019 on 17/01/2020 and
18/01/2020. This Resolution explicitly cancelled its earlier
Resolution No.70/2018 dated 16/03/2018, on the ground that
Resolution No.70/2018 was against Orders of Lokayukta,
judgments of High Court and Supreme Court. Resolution
No.133/2019 decided to adopt the 18 meters wide road
network as accepted by the Lokayuktha office while finalizing
RMP-2031. The BDA Commissioner also directed Respondent
No.3 to submit a revised site development plan as per

- 7 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


Resolution No.133/2019. The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:
"After discussion, it is decided to cancel the
resolution of the meeting held on date:
16.03.2018, in view of the approval given for
proposed Development Plan on date: 16.03.2018
is against the order of Hon'ble Lokayukta and
verdicts of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme
Court. Road Linkage Sketch consisting of 18.00
meters width implemented for the lands inclusive
of land pertaining to the complainant Sri
Veeranna, which has been given by the
Bangalore Development Authority to the office of
Lokayukta, the said road linkage sketch has been
accepted in the office of Hon'ble Lokayukta,
accordingly it is decided to obtain revised
Development sketch from the Petitioner."

2.3.2 The respondent appears to be extremely powerful for
whose help and assistance, the entire State machinery comes
forward. This is evident from the fact that the Government of
Karnataka subsequently issued a Gazette notification on
09/07/2020, withdrawing RMP-2031 and directing BDA to
sanction layouts as per RMP-2015.
2.3.3 As the city of Bengaluru has exponentially grown, the
demand of housing has also been increased manyfold and there
is unprecedented pressure on natural resources, including land.
The Land value is skyrocketing. Several land mafias and land
sharks are present in the city. These land mafias and land

- 8 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


sharks get every law and rule bent to be favorable towards
them.
2.3.4 The Bangalore Development Authority, by its
communication dated 24.11.2020 addressed to the Additional
Chief Secretary to Government, Urban Development
Department, apprised the Government of the action taken
pursuant to the earlier decisions of the Authority. The said
communication specifically stated that Resolution No.133/2019
dated 17.01.2020 and 18.01.2020 had been approved by the
BDA and that the matter was being dealt with in accordance
with the said Resolution, which had been passed in compliance
with the directions of the Karnataka Lokayukta as affirmed by
this Court and the Supreme Court. Thus, as on that date, the
consistent stand of the BDA was that Resolution No.133/2019
governed the consideration of the proposed Site Development

Plan.
2.3.5 Thereafter, Respondent No.3 submitted several
representations requesting the BDA to accord approval to the
proposed Site Development Plan. However, by endorsements
dated 17.02.2021 and 22.06.2022, the BDA declined to
approve the proposal and instead directed Respondent No.3 to

- 9 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


submit a revised Site Development Plan by incorporating the
road network plan prepared by the Town Planning Member of
the BDA in conformity with Resolution No.133/2019 dated
17.01.2020 and 18.01.2020. The BDA consistently maintained
that unless the revised Development Plan was submitted in
accordance with the road linkage approved under the said
Resolution, the proposal could not be processed for approval.
2.3.6 Aggrieved by the non-approval of the Site Development
Plan, Respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before the
Karnataka Lokayukta on 08.11.2023, alleging that the
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, had failed to
approve the Development Plan despite repeated requests.
Pursuant to the notice issued by the Lokayukta in the said
proceedings, the Commissioner, Bangalore Development
Authority, along with the Town Planning Member and the
Additional Town Planning Member, submitted a detailed report
dated 24.01.2024 before the Lokayukta.
2.3.7 The said detailed report before the Karnataka Lokayukta
sets out the entire history of the dispute and the action taken
by the Authority pursuant to the directions issued by the
Lokayukta, this Court and the Supreme Court. The report

- 10 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


records that Resolution No.70/2018 dated 16.03.2018,
whereby the Development Plan had been approved, was
subsequently cancelled under Resolution No.133/2019 dated
17.01.2020 and 18.01.2020, as the earlier resolution was found
to be contrary to the order of the Lokayukta and the judgments
of this Court and the Supreme Court. The report further notes
that, pursuant to Resolution No.133/2019, Respondent No.3
was directed to submit a revised Development Plan
incorporating the 18-metre road linkage accepted before the
Lokayukta and reflected in the road network plan, so as to
ensure proper linkage facilities to the surrounding areas,
including the land of the Appellants.
2.3.8 The detailed report further discloses that,
notwithstanding repeated communications issued by the BDA
on 17.02.2021, 22.06.2022 and 04.08.2022 calling upon
Respondent No.3 to submit a revised Development Plan in
conformity with Resolution No.133/2019 and the Lokayukta's
order dated 28.07.2011, Respondent No.3 failed to comply with
the said directions. Consequently, the Commissioner
categorically recorded that the revised non-residential
(commercial) Development Plan had not been approved by the
Authority for want of compliance with the requirement of

- 11 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


adopting the prescribed road linkage. The report thus
demonstrates that, as on 24.01.2024, the consistent stand of
the BDA was that Resolution No.133/2019 continued to govern
the matter and that approval of the Development Plan was
contingent upon compliance with the road linkage contemplated
therein.
2.3.9 In the meantime, a new Commissioner assumed charge
of the BDA. The said Commissioner, vide order dated
05.03.2024 within one and half month from the report dated
24.01.2024 submitted by the earlier Commissioner of BDA,
directed the withdrawal of Resolution No.133/2019 dated
17.01.2020 and 18.01.2020 and ordered the implementation of
Resolution No.70/2018 dated 16.03.2018, notwithstanding the
fact that the said Resolution had been rendered inconsistent
with the directions of the Lokayukta and the orders passed by
this Court and the Supreme Court. We fail to understand the
raison d’etre of this turnaround by the new Commissioner
within 41 days from the categorical stand taken by the BDA in
its report dated 24.01.2024.The relevant portion of the order
dated 05.03.2024 read as under:

- 12 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024



“5)It is ordered to initiate action by placing the
proceedings under subject No. 133/2019, dated:
17.01.2020 & 18.01.2020 before the next
meeting of the Committee of the Authority for
withdrawing it.”

2.3.10 Despite the finality of the Lokayuktha report and the
BDA's own Resolution No.133/2019, Respondent No.3
continued to make representations. On 05/03/2024,
Respondent No.1 (BDA Commissioner) passed an order to
cancel Resolution No.133/2019 and to implement Resolution
No.70/2018 dated 16/03/2018, which had been previously
cancelled for being contrary to the orders of the Lokayuktha,
High Court, and Supreme Court. This order effectively reduced
the proposed road access to the Appellants' land from 18
meters to 9.5 meters. We wonder how the Commissioner,
BDA has the power to review the earlier decision of the BDA in
contravention of the judgment of the High Court against which
SLP got dismissed as mentioned above. We, therefore, have no
hesitation in saying that the respondent is extremely powerful
and even got appointed a Commissioner, BDA favourable to
him. The turnaround by the BDA is an exercise in mala fide ,
arbitrary, illegal and for considerations other than legal.

- 13 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024



2.4. Proceedings Before the Single Judge:
2.4.1 The Appellants challenged the BDA Commissioner's order
dated 05/03/2024 by filing W.P. No.8405/2024. The Learned
Single Judge, by order dated 07/11/2024, dismissed the writ
petition. The Learned Single Judge reasoned that the
Lokayuktha's directions are not a decree, that the BDA is not
bound by its earlier resolution (No.133/2019) as it has powers
to revise, and that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any
infringement of their rights or violation of law, especially in
light of the withdrawal of RMP-2031 and the Lokayuktha's later
observation dated 12/02/2024 that previous orders did not
direct earmarking any particular area for roads.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS:
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently
contended that the order of the Learned Single Judge is
erroneous and unsustainable both in law and on facts. The core
of their arguments can be summarized as follows:

- 14 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


3.1. Finality of Judicial Pronouncements:
The Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that Resolution
No.133/2019 was passed by the BDA based on the report of
the Karnataka Lokayuktha under Section 12(1) of the
Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, which was unequivocally accepted
and confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.5434/2012 and subsequently by the Supreme Court of India
in SLP No.28000/2014. The dismissal of the SLP by the
Supreme Court lends absolute finality to the requirement of
providing linkage facilities as per the Lokayuktha's report,
which included the 18 meters wide road network plan.
3.2. Arbitrary and Illegal Withdrawal of Resolution
No.133/2019:
The BDA's action of withdrawing Resolution No.133/2019 and
reviving Resolution No.70/2018 (which was previously
cancelled for being contrary to the orders of the Lokayuktha,
High Court, and Supreme Court) is arbitrary, illegal, and a
colourable exercise of power. An administrative authority
cannot unilaterally rescind a resolution that was passed to
comply with judicial directives, especially without assigning

- 15 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


cogent reasons or providing an opportunity of hearing to the
affected parties.
3.3. Legitimate Expectation and Estoppel:
The Appellants had a legitimate expectation that the BDA,
having passed Resolution No.133/2019 based on the highest
judicial pronouncements, would adhere to it. The BDA even
directed Respondent No.3 to submit a revised plan as per
Resolution No.133/2019. The sudden reversal, especially when
the Appellants' land is landlocked, creates a situation akin to
promissory estoppel, where the authority cannot renege on its
solemn decision without compelling public interest reasons,
which are conspicuously absent in this case.
3.4. Misinterpretation of Lokayuktha's Later
Observations:
The Learned Single Judge erred in relying on the Lokayuktha's
observations dated 12/02/2024, which stated that previous
orders did not direct earmarking any particular area for roads.
This general observation cannot override the specific directions
in the earlier Lokayuktha report (28/07/2011) which explicitly
directed approval of an "Area Plan for the lands in Sy No. 1A of
Jakkur Plantations showing the linkage facilities" and referred

- 16 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


to the 08/10/2009 plan (18m). The later observation was a
general clarification and cannot negate the specific compliance
mechanism already affirmed by the High Court and Supreme
Court, and adopted by the BDA itself in Resolution
No.133/2019.
3.5. Infringement of Right to Access:
The Appellants' land is landlocked, and the provision of a
proper access road is crucial for its development and
enjoyment. The 1995 CDP itself indicated an 18 meters wide
road. The reduction of the road width to 9.5 meters, contrary to
the judicially affirmed Lokayuktha report and the BDA's own
Resolution No.133/2019, directly infringes upon the Appellants'
right to reasonable access, which is an essential incident of
property ownership.
3.6. Procedural Impropriety and Violation of Natural
Justice:
The BDA's order dated 05/03/2024, which effectively reversed
a decision based on judicial pronouncements, was passed
without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the
Appellants, who are directly and severely affected. This is a

- 17 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


clear violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the
order void ab initio.


3.7. Public Interest and Comprehensive Development:
The Lokayuktha's report and Resolution No.133/2019 were
aimed at ensuring proper "linkage facilities" for the surrounding
area, including the Appellants' land, serving a broader public
interest in planned development. Reducing the road width to
9.5 meters not only prejudices the Appellants but also
potentially compromises future comprehensive development
and accessibility in the area, contrary to the very purpose of a
planning authority like BDA.
3.8. Non-Application of Mind to Withdrawal of RMP-
2031:
While RMP-2031 was withdrawn, the BDA ought to have
incorporated the 18 meters wide road network, which was part
of the judicially affirmed Lokayuktha report, into the then-
applicable RMP-2015. The withdrawal of RMP-2031 cannot be a
blanket justification to disregard a specific direction that has

attained finality through judicial review.

- 18 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 :
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and
the BDA, supported the order of the Learned Single Judge and
advanced the following arguments:
4.1. BDA's Power to Revise Resolutions:
The BDA, as a planning authority, has the inherent power to
revise its resolutions, especially when circumstances change.
Resolution No.133/2019 was based on the proposed RMP-2031,
which was subsequently withdrawn by the Government.
Therefore, the BDA was justified in rescinding a resolution
based on a non-existent master plan.
4.2. Lokayuktha Report Not a Decree:
The Lokayuktha's report, as clarified by this Court in W.P.
No.5434/2012, is not a decree and only directs the BDA to act
in accordance with law. The Lokayuktha's subsequent
observation dated 12/02/2024 explicitly clarified that previous
orders did not direct leaving or earmarking any particular area
for roads. This absolves the BDA from being bound by a specific

road width.

- 19 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


4.3. Compliance with Applicable Master Plan:
The BDA has processed Respondent No.3's request in
accordance with the presently applicable Master Plan, RMP-
2015, which requires a road of 9.5 meters width for access. The
impugned order/resolution is therefore in accordance with the
prevailing legal framework.
4.4. No Violation of Law or Rights:
The Appellants failed to demonstrate how the impugned
order/resolution violates any statute or regulation of the BDA.
The provision of a 9.5 meters wide road ensures access to the
Appellants' property and does not amount to an infringement of
their rights, especially when no specific road width was
mandated by the higher courts.
4.5. Relinquishment by Respondent No.3:
Respondent No.3 has already relinquished 9.5 meters of land
in favour of the BDA for access to the Appellants,
demonstrating their willingness to comply with the legal
requirements.

- 20 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
5. Based on the rival contentions and the material on
record, the following points arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the
BDA's order dated 05/03/2024, which rescinded Resolution
No.133/2019 and sought to implement Resolution No.70/2018,
was in accordance with law?
(ii) Whether the BDA's action of withdrawing Resolution
No.133/2019 and reviving Resolution No.70/2018, which was
previously cancelled for being contrary to the Lokayuktha
Report affirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court, is
arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural
justice?
(iii) Whether the Appellants have a legitimate expectation and a
right to 18 meters wide road access to their property, as
envisaged by the Lokayuktha Report and Resolution
No.133/2019, which was duly adopted by the BDA?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both
the parties and our findings are as follows:

- 21 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024



6.1. RE. POINT 1: The Sanctity of Lokayuktha Report and
Judicial Affirmation: The fulcrum of this dispute lies in the
interpretation and implementation of the Lokayuktha Report
dated 28/07/2011, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P. No.5434/2012 and subsequently by the
Supreme Court dismissing the SLP No.28000/2014. While it is
true that the Lokayuktha's directions are not a "decree" in the
strict sense, this Court in W.P. No.5434/2012 categorically held
that they "must be implemented in its true spirit." The
dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court lends an undeniable
finality to this mandate. The Lokayuktha's report specifically
directed the BDA to obtain Government approval for an "Area
Plan... showing linkage facilities to the surrounding area
including the area of the Complainant" and referred to the
08/10/2009 plan which depicted an 18 meters wide road. The
BDA, in its Resolution No.133/2019, acknowledged this judicial
affirmation by cancelling Resolution No.70/2018 precisely
because it was "against judgments of Lokayukta, High Court,
and Supreme Court." To now argue that the Lokayuktha's
directions did not mandate a specific road width is to ignore the
very basis on which Resolution No.133/2019 was passed and

- 22 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


the judicial pronouncements that preceded it. The Learned
Single Judge erred in not giving due weight to the binding
nature of these judicial affirmations on the BDA's obligation to
provide adequate linkage. Accordingly, we answer Point No. 1
in favour of appellants.
6.2. RE. POINT 2: Arbitrariness in Withdrawing
Resolution No.133/2019:
The BDA's decision to withdraw Resolution No.133/2019 and
revive Resolution No.70/2018, which it had itself declared
illegal and cancelled, is fraught with arbitrariness and mala-
fide. Resolution No.133/2019 was not a mere administrative
decision; it was a corrective measure taken by the BDA to align
its actions with the directions of the Lokayuktha, affirmed by
the High Court and the SLP got dismissed by the Supreme
Court. To unilaterally reverse such a decision, without following
due process, amounts to an abuse of power. The argument that
RMP-2031 was withdrawn does not automatically justify
reverting to a resolution that was explicitly cancelled for being
legally infirm. The BDA had the option to incorporate the 18
meters road, which was part of the judicially affirmed
Lokayuktha report, into the then-applicable RMP-2015,
especially given the historical context of the 1995 CDP showing

- 23 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


an 18 meters road. The BDA's action appears to be an arbitrary
concession to Respondent No.3 rather than a principled
administrative decision. Therefore, we answer Point No.2 in

affirmative.
6.3. RE. POINT 3: Legitimate Expectation and Principles
of Natural Justice: The Appellants had a legitimate
expectation that the BDA would adhere to Resolution
No.133/2019, which was a culmination of a long legal battle
and a decision taken by the authority itself to comply with
judicial directives. The BDA even communicated to Respondent
No.3 to submit a revised plan as per Resolution No.133/2019.
Such a reversal, without notice or hearing to the Appellants,
who are directly and severely affected by the reduction in road
width, is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The order dated 05/03/2024, being passed behind the back of
the Appellants, cannot be sustained. We therefore, answer this
point in favour of the appellants.
6.4. Misinterpretation of the Later Observations of the
Lokayuktha:
The Learned Single Judge's reliance on the Lokayuktha's
observation dated 12/02/2024, stating that previous orders did
not direct earmarking any particular area for roads, is

- 24 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


misplaced in the context of the specific facts of this case. This
general observation cannot override the specific directions
contained in the Lokayuktha's report dated 28/07/2011, which
explicitly referred to an "Area Plan" showing "linkage facilities"
and the 08/10/2009 plan with an 18 meters road. The BDA
itself understood this to mean an 18 meters road when it
passed Resolution No.133/2019. The later observation was a
general clarification in response to a fresh complaint and
cannot be interpreted to nullify the specific compliance
mechanism that had already been judicially affirmed and
adopted by the BDA.
6.5. Right to Access and Public Interest:
The Appellants' right to reasonable access to their land is an
essential incident of their property rights. The 1995 CDP, the
Lokayuktha report, and Resolution No.133/2019 all pointed
towards an 18 meters wide road, not just for the Appellants but
for comprehensive development and linkage facilities in the
area. Reducing this to 9.5 meters not only severely prejudices
the Appellants but also potentially impacts the overall planning
and public interest in the locality. The BDA, as a planning
authority, is enjoined to act in the larger public interest, and its

- 25 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


decision to revert to a previously cancelled and legally infirm
resolution, without proper justification, does not serve this
purpose.

6.6. The Doctrine of Issue Estoppel:
While the Lokayuktha report is not a decree, the issues
surrounding the requirement of linkage facilities and the
illegality of Resolution No.70/2018 were directly and
substantially in issue in W.P. No.5434/2012 and SLP
No.28000/2014. The findings of this Court and the Supreme
Court on these issues, particularly the affirmation of the
Lokayuktha's report and the implied illegality of any plan
contrary to it, operate as issue estoppel against the BDA.
6.7. Non-Compliance with Section 32 of the BDA Act:
The Lokayuktha's order dated 08/01/2018, while closing a
complaint, specifically reminded the BDA to exercise its power
under Section 32 of the BDA Act, considering the latest Revised
Master Plan and relevant regulations in the public interest . The
BDA's action of reverting to a 9.5 meters road, which was
previously deemed illegal, does not appear to be an exercise of

- 26 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


power under Section 32 in the public interest, but rather an
colourable exercise of power and arbitrary concession to
Respondent No.3, ignoring the broader implications for planned

development.

6.8. The Duty to Act Fairly and Reasonably:
Public authorities are bound to act fairly, reasonably, and in a
non-arbitrary manner. The BDA's conduct in first cancelling
Resolution No.70/2018 due to its illegality, then passing
Resolution No.133/2019 in compliance with judicial orders, and
subsequently reversing it without proper justification or
hearing, demonstrates a lack of fairness and reasonableness.
Such vacillating conduct undermines public trust in
administrative decision-making.
In light of the foregoing analysis, we find that the Learned
Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition. The
Appellants have successfully demonstrated a clear infringement
of their rights and a violation of law by the BDA's arbitrary
action.

- 27 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


7. CONCLUSION:
7.1 We conclude that the BDA's order dated 05/03/2024, which
sought to cancel Resolution No.133/2019 and revive Resolution
No.70/2018, is unsustainable in law. Resolution No.133/2019
was a conscious decision taken by the BDA in compliance with
the directions of the Lokayuktha, which were affirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court of India.
The subsequent withdrawal of RMP-2031 does not grant the
BDA the authority to arbitrarily revert to a resolution that was
previously cancelled for being contrary to judicial
pronouncements.
7.2 The principles of legitimate expectation, natural justice,
and non-arbitrariness in administrative action mandate that the
BDA adhere to its Resolution No.133/2019, which provided for
an 18 meters wide road access, consistent with the judicially
affirmed Lokayuktha report and the historical context of the
1995 CDP. Therefore, we, while allowing the Writ Appeal , pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The order dated 07/11/2024 passed by the Learned Single
Judge in W.P. No.8405/2024 (BDA) is hereby set aside .

- 28 -
WA No. 1766 of 2024


(ii) The order dated 05/03/2024 issued by Respondent No.1,
the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, is hereby
quashed .
(iii) Respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to implement
Resolution No.133/2019 dated 17/01/2020 and 18/01/2020,
which was passed based on the report of the Karnataka
Lokayuktha under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha
Act, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the
Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP.
(iv) No order as to costs.
In view of disposal of the writ appeal, 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

RKA
CT:SN