BDA must consider site-owner allotment applications before taking action against acquired sites.

The petitioner challenged the preliminary notification dated 21 May 2008 and final notification dated 18 February 2010 issued for formation of the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, insofar as they affected Site No. 69 in Sy. No. 28, K. Krishna Sagara.

She claimed that the site formed part of a residential layout, that she had purchased it by sale deed dated 22 October 1998—before the preliminary notification—and that she was in possession

The respondents relied on the Division Bench judgment in Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri R. Shankaran, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 27144, which upheld the acquisition notifications subject to specified relief for affected landowners and site owners

Whether the acquisition notifications were liable to be quashed insofar as they affected the petitioner’s site, on the grounds that it had been formed in a layout and purchased before the preliminary notification

Whether the petitioner’s claim should instead be dealt with under the relief and procedures prescribed by the Division Bench in BDA v. Sri R. Shankaran

The notifications were issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act

The Division Bench in Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri R. Shankaran, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 27144, upheld the preliminary and final notifications subject to directions providing affected landowners and site owners with specified procedures and relief; those directions included a process for site owners seeking exclusion of their sites and, where applicable, registration for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984

The present Court applied those directions to the petitioner’s case

The Court noted that the acquisition had been upheld by the Division Bench, which had also prescribed relief for site owners who had purchased before the preliminary notification

It therefore did not independently quash the notifications or determine that the petitioner’s site must be excluded. Instead, it disposed of the petition on similar lines, directing the petitioner to register with the BDA for allotment and permitting her to seek an alternate site or the same site if she had constructed on it

The petitioner was directed to register for allotment within three months of receiving the order, and the BDA was directed to decide her application within three months of receiving it

Until that process was complete, the BDA was prohibited from taking any action in respect of Site No. 69