Administrative Authorities Cannot Arbitrarily Rescind Resolutions Passed to Comply with Judicially Affirmed Mandates

The Appellants own 3 acres of land in Jakkur Plantation Village, Bengaluru, which is landlocked by the property of Respondent No. 3 (25+ acres).

In 2011, following a complaint by the Appellants’ father, the Karnataka Lokayukta issued a report under Section 12(1) of the Lokayukta Act, directing the BDA to provide linkage facilities (an 18m wide road) to the Appellants' land.

This report was affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the BDA passed Resolution No. 133/2019 to implement the 18m road.

However, following a change in leadership, the BDA Commissioner issued an order on 05.03.2024 to withdraw Resolution No. 133/2019 and revive a previously cancelled Resolution (No. 70/2018), effectively reducing the road width to 9.5m.

The Appellants challenged this before a Single Judge, who dismissed their petition.

1. Whether the BDA’s order dated 05.03.2024, rescinding Resolution No. 133/2019 and reviving Resolution No. 70/2018, was arbitrary and illegal given previous judicial affirmations.

2. Whether the Appellants possessed a legitimate expectation and a right to an 18m wide road access based on the Lokayukta report and subsequent judicial finality.

3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the BDA in passing the order dated 05.03.2024 without hearing the Appellants.

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act regarding writ appeals.

Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, interpreting that while Lokayukta directions are not "decrees," they must be implemented in "true spirit" once judicially affirmed.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and the Principle of Promissory Estoppel against administrative reversal of settled decisions.

Doctrine of Issue Estoppel, preventing authorities from re-litigating or reversing findings affirmed by Higher Courts.

Section 32 of the BDA Act, emphasizing that planning powers must be exercised in the public interest rather than for arbitrary concessions.

The Court observed that Resolution No. 133/2019 was not a mere administrative choice but a compliance measure following the Supreme Court's dismissal of Respondent No. 3’s challenge.

The sudden "turnaround" by a new Commissioner within 41 days of the BDA's categorical report to the Lokayukta was deemed a mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power.

The Court rejected the BDA’s argument that the withdrawal of RMP-2031 justified the reversal, noting that the 18m road was a specific judicial mandate that could have been integrated into RMP-2015.

The Court found the Single Judge erred by relying on a general later observation by the Lokayukta to override a specific, judicially-affirmed compliance mechanism.

Furthermore, the BDA violated natural justice by passing an order affecting the Appellants' property rights behind their back.

The Court quashed the BDA Commissioner’s order dated 05.03.2024, holding it unsustainable in law.

It directed Respondents No. 1 and 2 to implement Resolution No. 133/2019 immediately, restoring the 18m road access to the Appellants' land to maintain the "true spirit" of the judicially affirmed Lokayukta report.

Pending IAs were disposed of without further order as to costs.