A subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition but may seek relief granted to original landowners.

The petitioner purchased two acres in Sy. No. 93/4, Kannahalli Village, on 8 September 2017, after the land had been notified for acquisition for the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout and while a writ appeal concerning the acquisition was pending.

He sought a direction requiring the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and its Land Acquisition Officer to consider his representation dated 15 December 2025 and drop the acquisition.

He relied on a Division Bench judgment dated 22 February 2024 in W.A. No. 1783/2014 and connected appeals, which had granted relief to land losers.

The respondents opposed dropping the acquisition, contending that the petitioner had purchased the land during the appeal and was entitled only to relief available under that Division Bench judgment.

1. Whether a purchaser who acquired notified land during the pendency of an appeal could seek a direction to drop the land from acquisition.

2. Whether the petitioner could seek consideration of a fresh representation for relief on grounds recognised in the Division Bench judgment dated 22 February 2024.

The Court applied the principle that a purchaser of land after it has been notified for acquisition cannot challenge the acquisition on grounds available to the original owner; it cited V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133, in connection with the respondents’ objection to the petitioner’s claim.

The Court also applied the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1783/2014 and connected appeals, dated 22 February 2024, as the basis for considering whether the petitioner could receive the same relief granted to landowners under that decision.

The petitioner purchased the land after the acquisition notifications and during the pendency of the appeal in which the Division Bench upheld those notifications.

The Court therefore held that he lacked standing to challenge the acquisition or obtain an order dropping his land from it.

However, because the Division Bench had granted certain reliefs to landowners, the Court permitted the petitioner to seek any applicable benefit by making a fresh representation based on the grounds identified in that judgment.

It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the BDA, in line with the Division Bench judgment, within one month after receiving a certified copy of the order.

If filed, the respondents must decide it in accordance with law within two months.

Until that decision, the respondents must not disturb the petitioner’s possession, provided the layout has not been formed on the land.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.