Karnataka HC says former BDA commissioner’s withdrawal of land-acquisition appeal was not bona fide; upholds acquisition of lands for Banashankari VI Stage layout

The appeals concerned BDA acquisition of adjoining lands in Sy. Nos. 48/3A and 48/3B-1 at Gubbalala Village for a connecting road and the Banashankari VI Stage Layout.

The owners argued that surrounding lands had been left out, leaving their properties as isolated pockets unsuitable for a comprehensive layout, and sought to invalidate the acquisition, relying on Bondu Ramaswamy.

The Writ Court accepted that contention: it quashed the notifications insofar as they affected the properties, while preserving the road portion in W.P. No. 9246/2021; the other petition was allowed on the same basis.

During the appeals, the Court also examined the circumstances in which W.A. No. 400/2025 had been withdrawn and subsequently restored.

Whether leaving the owners’ lands as isolated pockets, while neighbouring lands remained outside the acquisition, made the acquisition or layout legally unsustainable under Bondu Ramaswamy.

Whether the Banashankari VI Stage Scheme had been substantially implemented, such that the owners’ claims of lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act could not succeed.

Whether the Writ Court’s orders quashing the acquisition notifications should be set aside.

Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 addresses the consequences where a scheme is not implemented within the prescribed period; the Court relied on prior decisions holding that substantial implementation of the Banashankari VI Stage Scheme defeated a claim of lapse.

In Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, the Supreme Court held that the BDA Act is a self-contained statute for planned development, that the Land Acquisition Act applies only to the limited extent incorporated, and that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to BDA acquisitions.

The Court also relied on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal for the principle that non-deposit of compensation does not by itself cause acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

It distinguished Bondu Ramaswamy as factually inapplicable to the acquisitions before it.

The Court held that the Writ Court had misapplied Bondu Ramaswamy: the lands were acquired for a connecting road and extension of Banashankari VI Stage, and prior decisions had upheld the acquisition and found the scheme substantially implemented.

In light of those decisions, the contention that the BDA could not proceed because the owners’ lands would form small, isolated pockets could not be sustained; the Court concluded that the claims under Section 27 of the BDA Act did not warrant quashing the notifications.

The Court separately found that the earlier decision to withdraw W.A. No. 400/2025 was not bona fide and restored that appeal; it also directed the BDA to follow the circulars and guidelines introduced to address deficiencies in conducting litigation.

It allowed both appeals, set aside the Writ Court’s orders, and dismissed both writ petitions.

It further directed the BDA to adhere to the relevant circulars and guidelines in future litigation, with deviations to be viewed seriously and appropriate action taken against responsible officers.

Costs were made easy, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.