SRI. C.V. ASHWATHAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 27658 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. C.V. ASHWATHAIAH @ C.V.ASHWATHAPPA,
S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT NO.593,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, B.T.M. LAYOUT,
II STAGE, MICO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 076.

2.
SMT. NALINI R SHETTY
W/O. SRI. P. RAMAKANTHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.865, "PERODY GARDEN",
VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
…PETITIONERS











Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1;
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2)

AND:

1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016



3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.100/3
MEASURING 13 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT BILEKANAHALLY VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK HAS LAPSED PURSUANT
TO THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.BDA/ALAO/A1.PR/117/87-89 DATED 06.08.1988 AND FINAL
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.HUD 334 MNX 90 DATED 03.11.1990
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A & B AND CONSEQUENTLY
DECLARE THAT THE RESPODNENTS HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO
ACQUIRE THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the
acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.100/3 of Bilekahalli Village,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 13 guntas in
terms of the preliminary notification bearing
No.BDA/ALAO/A1.PR/117/87-88 dated 06.08.1988 and the final
notification bearing No.HUD 334 MNX 90 dated 03.11.1990, has
lapsed under Section 27 of the Bengaluru Development
Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act' for
short). Consequently, they have prayed for a declaration that
the respondents have lost the statutory right to proceed with
the acquisition.
2. (i) The petitioners contend that they are the
owners of land bearing Sy.No.100/3 of Bilekahalli Village which
was notified for acquisition by the respondent No.2 under
Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act for formation of BTM IV
Stage layout. A final notification was issued on 03.11.1990 in
respect of 241.06 acres of land, which included the land
belonging to the petitioners. They contend that the respondents
have not taken possession of the property in question and that
possession continues with the petitioners, which is evident from
the revenue records, as the property continues in the name of
the petitioners. They contend that respondent No.2 claimed

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


that possession of the property was taken on 20.10.1998.
However, the mahazar under which possession was allegedly
taken was drawn on 20.10.1998, was incomplete, as several
blanks therein were not filled. The presence of the petitioners
at the time of taking possession of the property in question was
not mentioned, and the names and addresses of the witnesses
shown therein were not identifiable.
(ii) The petitioners contend that respondent No.2 has
failed to implement the scheme within 05 years as prescribed
under Section 27 of the BDA Act. The Co-Ordinate Benches of
this Court in W.P. Nos.12646-647/2010 and connected petitions
held that the scheme for implementation of BTM IV Stage
layout had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act for non-
implementation of the scheme within 05 years. Similarly,
another Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.38868-
70/2015 held that the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 are applicable even
to acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act. It is
therefore contended that the issue raised in this writ petition is

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


no longer res integra, as the BDA has accepted the judgment
passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.12646-647/2010 and
connected petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated
the aforesaid contentions and submits that this Court in
W.P. Nos.12646-647/2010 and connected writ petitions had at
length discussed the manner in which the BDA failed to
implement the scheme. Therefore, the scheme in respect of the
property in question is also not implemented and hence a
declaration deserves to be granted in favour of the petitioners.
He contends that the respondent No.2 has not formed any
layout in the land in question and has not utilised the land in
question for any other purpose.
4. (i) A statement of objections is filed by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein they have contended that this
petition is filed after 28 years from the date of issuance of the
preliminary notification and hence, the petition is highly belated
and is liable to be rejected. It is also claimed that the
petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, have no locus standi
to challenge the notifications on the ground that the scheme

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


has lapsed. It is claimed that the land bearing Sy.No.100/3 of
Bilekahalli village, measuring 13 guntas, belonged to Sri. B. M.
Krishnappa, who sold 04 guntas of land to Sri. K.M.Nanjappa in
terms of a sale dated 29.12.1995, who subsequently conveyed
the same to the petitioner No.1 on 10.09.1997. Another 04
guntas of land was thereafter sold to Sri. S. M. Bhaskara, who
conveyed the same to Sri.Dhanalakshmi, and thereafter, she
sold it to the petitioner No.2. The remaining 05 guntas of land
fell to the share of Sri. B.K.Sanjeev Kumar.
(ii) It is claimed that after the preliminary notification
was issued on 06.08.1988 in respect of 397.13 acres for
formation of BTM IV stage layout, a final notification was issued
on 03.11.1990. The notified khatedar was shown as
Mr.Hebbagedi Ayappa. A claim was made by Mr. B. M.
Krishnappa seeking compensation on the ground that he was
entitled to the same. It is contended that a notice of award
proceedings dated 10.04.1991 was issued, but no steps were
taken thereafter in view of a writ petition filed by
Mr. B.M. Krishnappa. Thereafter, a mahazar was drawn in the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


presence of witnesses on 20.10.1998 taking over possession of
13 guntas of land.
(iii) It is contended that the claimant/notified kathedars
had participated in the award proceedings and filed an
application seeking stay of the award in view of the pendency
of W.P. No.10917/1991. It is thus contended that the kathedar
had full knowledge of the acquisition and yet, purportedly sold
the properties to the petitioners. It is claimed that an award
was passed on 10.08.1999 and approved on 17.08.1999. It is
claimed that the petitioners having purchased the properties
subsequent to the acquisition, do not have any right to contend
that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act
and hence the petition is not maintainable.
(iv) It is also contended that against the order passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.12646-
647/2010, W.A.No.1260/2023 was filed where an order of
status quo was passed and hence the proceedings is pending
consideration.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and
3 reiterated the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the
petitioners cannot take advantage of the order passed in W.P.
No.12646-647/2010. The contention of the respondent Nos.2
and 3 is that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers are
not entitled to challenge the non-implementation of the
scheme, is also considered by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court
in W.P.Nos. 58292/2014 c/w W.P.No.11782/2024 and hence
the said contention is also liable to be rejected.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the acquisition by the respondent No.1 for the
benefit of respondent No.2 for formation of BTM IV stage
Layout was also considered in W.P.No.27644/2016 where the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the scheme had
lapsed. The said order was challenged before the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3884/2019 which was dismissed
on the ground of delay. He contends that another Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21831/2016, passed a similar
order holding that the scheme for formation of BTM IV stage
layout had lapsed. The said order was challenged before the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.741/2021, which too
was dismissed and SLP(C) Diary No.46466/2024 filed against
the same was also dismissed. He therefore submits that the
issue is squarely covered by various judgments passed by this
Court, which have consistently held that the scheme for
implementation of BTM IV Stage Layout had lapsed. He
therefore submits that the petitioners should also be extended
the said benefit.
7. This Court, in order to verify whether the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 had taken any steps to implement the
scheme in respect of the property in question, called upon the
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ascertain
whether any layout is formed in the land belonging to the
petitioners and whether any sites were allotted in respect of the
land belonging to the petitioners. Today, the learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 after securing instructions,
submits that no layout is formed in the land belonging to the
petitioners and no sites are allotted.
8. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in various judgments, which

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48345
WP No. 27658 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010057012016


were upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the contentions urged by the petitioners in this
petition are no longer res integra and are fully covered by the
judgments of the Coordinate Benches, the Division Bench and
the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra.
allowed
9. In that view of the matter, this petition is .
It is declared that the scheme for formation of BTM IV stage
layout by the respondent No.2, in so far as the land in
Sy.No.100/3 of Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
belonging to the petitioners pursuant to the preliminary and
final notifications dated 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 has lapsed.
10. It is made clear that the question whether purchase
subsequent to the notifications is entitled to challenge an
acquisition is not specifically considered, in view of the peculiar
facts of this case.

Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE

HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31