Karnataka High Court
Dasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF R
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO.1026 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.1093 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1312 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1430 OF 2006 (LA)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1844 OF 2006 (LA-BDA)
AND
WRIT APPEAL NO.960 OF 2007 (LA-BDA)
IN WA NO.1026 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O T. VAJRAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LR's
1(a). SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE RAJANNA,
-2-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
D/O GANGAMMA
(1ST APPELLANT, NOW DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAPALYA VILLAGE,
BISKUR POST, KUDUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.
1(b). SMT. SUNANDA,
W/O SRI. B.R.SIDDARAMU,
D/O GANGAMMA (NOW DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT. GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE ROAD,
SUBHASH NAGAR,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
2. SRI ASHWATHRAMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. GANGAMMA,
R/AT. THALAGATTAPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRAKASH
T. HEBBAR - ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-3-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI. G.S. KANNUR,
SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADV.
APPEARING FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.NO.2066/2004 DATED
06.06.2006 IN FAR AS IT RELATES TO UPHOLDING THE
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION
SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY
SETTING ASIDE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL NOTIFICATION,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO.1093 OF 2006
BETWEEN
1. SRI T N RAMAIAH
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
2. SRI MUNITHIMMAIAH
S/O MUDDABYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
-4-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
3(a). GANGAVAJRAPPA
S/O MUNIBYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3(b). MUNISWAMAPPA
S/O MUNIBYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. SRI V MUNIKRISHNA
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5. SRI VAZEER SAB
S/O MOHIDDIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
THALAGHATTAPURA,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.
-5-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
4. SRI RAMAKRISHNA H S
S/O LATE SRI H SUBBARAYA AIYAR,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.407, VASTU GREEN APARTMENT,
SUNKALPALYA, KENGERI-UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.
5. SRI GIRISH,
S/O SRI MAYI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR, J.P.NAGAR
7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.
6. SMT B VASANTHI,
W/O SRI S BABU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.44, 1ST 'A' CROSS,
M.R.GARDEN, GEDDALAHALLI,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.
7. SRI M H SUNDARESHAN,
S/O LATE SRI HANUMAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.141, MATHUNGA,
CMR LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
8. SMT T PREETHA,
W/O SRI E N MURALIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.478, 5TH CROSS,
M.S.R.NAGAR, M.S.R.T POST,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
9. SRI BHASKAR K
S/O SRI V KRISHNA IYER,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.45, RAMAIAH REDDY LAYOUT,
-6-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
SECTOR-B, BASAVANAGAR,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU-560 037.
10. SRI BASAVARAJ H C,
S/O LATE SRI PUTTALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT NO.228, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST CROSS JAYARAMA LAYOUT,
NEAR VENKATESWARA COLLEGE (DENTAL),
BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 083.
11. SMT SRIDEVI,
W/O SRI SHAMBHULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.217, 8TH MAIN,
1ST BLOCK, H.R.B.R LAYOUT,
KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.
12. SMT B K JAYASHREE
W/O LATE SRI M C SRIKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.L.F.43/11, ESIC QUARTERS,
NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.
13. SRI G P PRAKASH,
S/O SRI PRASANNAIAH G M,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, 1ST FLOOR,
4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MANJUNATH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI G.S.KANNUR,
SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADV.
APPEARING FOR R2 & R3, SRI. D.N. MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.1/2015, SRI.
B.R.VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON
-7-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
I.A.1/2014, SRI. R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING
PROPOSED R-4 TO 13)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.06.2006 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
No.2057-2065/2004 (LA-BDA) APPELLANTS CONCERNED
PASSED THEREIN REGARDING UPHOLDING VALIDITY OF THE
NOTIFICATIONS TO ACQUIRE APPELLANTS LANDS AND DROP
THE SAME FROM ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS BY THE
RESPONDENTS.
IN WA NO.1116 OF 2006
BETWEEN
1. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O M. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. M. NAGARAJ
S/O MOTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O M NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
4. SRI M MUNIRAJU,
S/O M NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
5. SRI RAVI
S/O M NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
6. SRI SATHISH
S/O M NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
-8-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
7. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
8. SRI MANJESH
S/O M NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
9. SRI HARISH
S/O M NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
10. M USHA
D/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
11. ASHA,
AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS,
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
FATHER MUNIRAJU
12. MASTER AKSHAY
AGED ABOUT 03 YEARS,
S/O SATISH
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
FATHER SATISH
ALL ARE R/AT SY.NO.61/1A 1(P)
GUBBALAALA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T.RAVINDRA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
-9-
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY RAOD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
4. RAMAIAH
S/O DODDA ANJANAPPA,
WORKING AS PEON IN BDA,
R/AT GUBBALAALA VILLAGE,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
5. HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O DODDA ANJANAPPA,
R/AT GUBBALAALA VILLAGE,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI G.S.KANNUR,
SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADV.
APPEARING FOR R2 & R3, SRI V.VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR
PROPOSED R-4 AND VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.01.2007
NOTICE TO R-5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.06.2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.43126-
37/2003 (L.A.) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
IN WA NO.1164 OF 2006
BETWEEN
1. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA @ CHINNATHAYAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI.MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.Rs
- 10 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
1(a) SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED 75 YEARS
1(b). SRI. ANANDA MURTHY
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
1(c). SRI. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
1(d). SRI. BHEEMARAJU
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.66, GANIGARA PALYA,
HOSAHALLI DAKALU,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
TALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 109.
1(e). SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
1(f). SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
RAMOHALLI,
DODDA AALADAMARA,
MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 562 130.
1(g). SMT. SUMITHRA,
D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
- 11 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT DEVANAHALLI,
KANNAMANGALA PALYA,
BENGALURU - 562 110.
1(h). SMT. SHILPA
GRAND DAUGHTER OF
MUNIVENKATAMMA,
D/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.3, 3RD CROSS,
DODDAMANNI,
CHOWDAIAH BLOCK,
NEAR SIDDHARTHA SCHOOL,
RT NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
2. SRI THYAGARAJA
S/O SRI RAMAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT HOSAHALLI DHAKALE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
TALAGATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 032.
3. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY K.,
S/O SRI.MUNU KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT TALAGATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
4. SRI CHANDRA MOULI H.,
S/O SRI.HANUMANTHARAO,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.173,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
B.S.K. THIRD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
- 12 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
5. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs
(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
(b) SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING OF
GANIGARA PALYA,
HOSAHALLI TALUK,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
TALAGATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 109.
6. SMT CHOODAMANI
W/O LATE SRI.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
HOSAHALLI TALUK, DHAKLE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
TALAGATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 109.
7. SRI KODANDAPANI,
S/O LATE SRI.CHINNAIAH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF GANIGARA PALYA,
HOSAHALLI TALUK,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
TALAGATTAPURA POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 109.
8. MRS REETA J. DOSHI,
W/O MR.JAGADISH KUMAR D.DOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.211, 3RD 'D' CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
- 13 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
9. MRS RASHMI V. DOSHI,
W/O MR.VIJAY KUMAR D.DOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.326, 3RD BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MITHUN GERAHALLI A., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI G.S.KANNUR,
SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADV.
APPEARING FOR R2 & R3, SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR
COUNSEL A/W SRI H.S.SANTHOSH, ADV. FOR PROPOSED
RESPONDENT ON I.A.1/2015)
- 14 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.54766/2003,
49850/2003, 48158/2003 & 51132/2003 DATED 06/06/2006.
IN WA NO.1167 OF 2006
BETWEEN
CHENNBASAPPA @ CHENNBASAVAIAH,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT GANIGARAPALAYA VILAGE,
THALGTAPURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD,
BANGALORE
3. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD,
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENTS
- 15 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, SRI G.S.KANNUR,
SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADV.
APPEARING FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.06.2006 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.4147/2004 (LA-BDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY
REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, CONSEQUENTLY BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL.
IN WA NO.1312 OF 2006
BETWEEN
1. N. ASHWATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
2. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT,
THALAGHATTAPURA,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
- 16 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2, SRI
G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MURUGESH
V.CHARATI, ADV. APPEARING FOR R2 & R3, SRI
A.PANCHAKSHARAIAH / PARTY-IN-PERSON)
****
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.06.2006 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.2057/2004 (LA-BDA) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN SO FAR AS APPELLANTS ARE
CONCERNED REGARDING UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE
NOTIFICATIONS TO ACQUIRE APPELLANTS LANDS AND DROP
THE SAME FROM ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS BY THE
RESPONDENTS.
IN WA NO.1430 OF 2006:
BETWEEN:
1. THIMAPPA,
S/O MUDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. L MANJUNATHA,
S/O MUDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
- 17 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
3. M SUBHASH,
S/O MUDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
4. GANGAMMA,
W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
5. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
6. MANGALAMMA,
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
7. VIJAYA.M
W/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 42YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT THALAGATAPURA,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 062.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R HEMANTHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3,
SRI T S VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR A4 TO A7 (P/H))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
- 18 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY,
T.CHAWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1 - STATE (P/H),
SRI G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADV. APPEARING FOR
R2 AND R3 - BDA(P/H) )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.2240/2004 DATED 6/6/2006.
IN WA NO.1844 OF 2006:
BETWEEN:
1. DASAPPA
S/O DASAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A. SMT YELLAMMA,
W/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
1B. D DEVARAJ,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
THALGATPURA POST,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 62.
- 19 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
1C. SMT JANAKAMMA
D/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, GANIGARAPALYA,
NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE,
THALAGATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1C(i) SRI SRIKANTH,
S/O LATE SMT JANAKAMMA
AND LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, GANIGARAPALYA NEAR
BASAVANNA TEMPLE,
THALAGATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
1C(ii) SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA,
S/O LATE SMT JANAKAMMA
AND LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, GANIGARAPALYA NEAR
BASAVANNA TEMPLE,
THALAGATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
1C(iii) SRI DINESH,
S/O LATE SMT JANAKAMMA
AND LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, GANIGARAPALYA NEAR
BASAVANNA TEMPLE,
THALAGATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
1D. SMT KRISHNAVENI,
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE DASAPPA
W/O LATE TIRUPATHI @ H.D.BABU,
- 20 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT No.59, GANIGARAPALYA,
OPP: SAMPANGI RAMAIAH BUILDING,
THALAGATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 062. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI H N
BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE AND SRI M R RAJAGOPAL, SR.
COUNSEL A/W SRI H S SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. M DINESH BABU,
S/O E MADHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.10, 7TH 'A' CROSS, M.V.NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560016.
5. SRINIVAS MURTHY,
S/O LATE R KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19, BCMC LAYOUT,
RAGHUVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
- 21 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
6. SRI. D. SUBHASCHANDRA
S/O LATE SRI. S.C DHARMARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2107, 4TH MAIN,
1ST CROSS NEAR ROYAL COUNTY PARK,
JP NAGAR, VIII PHASE, 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560083.
7. SRI. R. GUNASHEKAR,
S/O SRI. S. RAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
FLAT NO.G-4 RONAK APARTMENTS,
2ND MAIN, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
8. SMT. M. YAMUNAKALYANI,
W/O P. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.10, 7TH A CROSS, M.V.NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560016.
9. SMT. PUSHPALATH K.R,
W/O LATE B.S. SREEVATSA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.203, 16TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE,
BEGNALURU - 560070.
10. SRI. SRINGESHWARA,
S/O K.S. RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, 3RD BLOCK,
SOMANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560082.
11. SRI. N. SHASHANK,
S/O H.C. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.37, 2ND CROSS ANJANEYA NAGAR,
- 22 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
BANASHANKARI, III STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560085.
12. MISS R. VINITRA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O LATE SUNDARI R/A G-1,
GROUND FLOOR 'KUTEERA' 15TH CROSS ROAD,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098,
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
SRI. N. KALYANA SUNDARAM,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE R. NARAYANAN,
R/AT FLAT NO.G-1 NO.46/1A ,
KUTEERA APARTMENTS 15TH CROSS ROAD,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.
13. SMT. VYANTHIMALA,
W/O B. RANGARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.M. 001, TAMBOURINE APARTMENTS,
KANAKAPURA ROAD, JARAGANAHALLI,
JP NAGAR, VI PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560078.
14. SRI. ZAKIR ABDUL KALAM,
S/O C. ALI,
R/A CHULLIYIL HOUSE,
NECHIKUND, MANJERI-676121.
15. SRI. N. SARAVANAN,
S/O LATE N.P. NATARAJAN,
NO.5, 9TH CROSS, 3RDMAIN,
HOYSALA NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 16.
- 23 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
16. SRI. S. BHAGATHKUMAR,
C/O S. VARDHARAJAN, PLOT NO.29,
DOOR NO.416, KRISHNAPURI,
ADHANOOR ROAD,
GURUVANCHERI-603202.
17. SRI. U VIKRAMAN,
FLOT NO.303A BROOKLYN APARTMENTS
NO.63, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD,
JAIBHARATHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 33.
18. SMT. SHANTHA,
W/O J.B. UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.576, UPSTAIRS, 23RD CROSS,
13TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560070.
19. SRI. B.S. SREEHARSHA,
S/O LATE B.R. SEETHARAMAIAH,
R/AT NO.203, 16TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560070
20. SRI. R. SHIVALINGAM,
S/O LATE C. RATHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.928, 7TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560050.
21. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O A.K. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR,
SUPRASANNA RESIDENCY, NO.13/2,
13TH H MAIN, DOOPANAHALLI GARDEN,
BENGALURU -560008.
- 24 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
22. SRI. H.R. RAJANNA,
S/O RANGANARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.278, SLN NILAYA WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560086.
23. SRI. ROHTAS KUMAR,
S/O LATE S.H. LAKHIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.575, 23RD CROSS, 13TH MAIN ,
BSK II STAGE BENGALURU - 560070.
24. SRI. S. SANGAMANATH,
S/O SETTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.114, 4TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU.
25. SRI. PRASHANT KARKARE,
S/O DINAKAR KARKARE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
C-003, RAHEJA RESIDENCY II BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560034.
26. SRI. S. PRASAD,
S/O LATE S. SIDDARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.36, KALAKUNG, 1ST EAST, LINK ROAD,
MALLESHWARA, BENGALURU - 560017.
27. SRI. S.D MARULAPPA
S/O LATE S. SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO.36, KALAKUNJ 1ST EAST LINK ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560017.
28. SMT. S. VINUTHA,
W/O J.B. PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.576, 23RD CROSS 13TH MAIN,
- 25 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560070.
29. SMT. T.S ASHA KIRAN,
D/ LATE T.G. SHIVANAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1012, 15TH CROSS 24TH MAIN,
BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560070.
30. SMT. V. PARVATHY,
W/O LATE A. VENKATASUBRAMANIAN,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
NO.4, RAMS FLAT (GROUND FLOOR NO.3) (OLD NO.50))
BURMA KANAKKAMMAL STREET,
WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI- 600033.
31. SRI. V. NAGARAJAN,
S/O VENKATARAM,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7 UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKA KALLASANDRA, KSRTC LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560061.
32. SRI. L.R. PARAMESHWARA,
S/O RAMAKRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.88, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
EAST OF KATHRIGUPPE,
BENGALURU - 560085.
33. P.K. NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.23, 21ST CROSS,
ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560085.
34. K. ACHUTHA RAO,
S/O LATE KRISHNA MURTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
- 26 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
RESIDING AT NO.8 19TH C CROSS,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560061.
35. SHANTHA GURURAJ,
W/O LATE A.K. GURURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.213, 4TH MAIN,
5TH CROSS, NEAR BATA SHOWROOM,
BAK 1ST STAGE, SRINIVASANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560050.
36. M.S. ANUPAMA RAO,
W/O M.S. SRIPATHI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MATHRUSHREE NILAYA NO.198,
3RD CROSS, NEW BANK COLONY,
KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560062.
37. S. DWARKANATH,
S/O LATE S. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MATHRUSHREE NILAYA NO.198,
3RD CROSS, NEW BANK COLONY,
KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560062.
38. T. KRISHNA MURHTY,
S/O LATE THANGAVELU,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.58, 8TH MAIN,
MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560037.
39. S. LAKSHMI,
W/O R. RAVINDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16A BRINDAVANA LAYOUT,
SUBRAMANYAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560061.
- 27 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
40. N. PARVATHI,
W/O LATE S. SRINIVASALU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.161/A 7TH MAIN ,
3RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560028.
41. K. PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE K. V. BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.43,
DOOR NO.181, SHIRKE APARTMENT,
KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560060.
42. S. RAVINDRA RAO,
S/O LATE S.N. ABU RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16A BRINDAVANA LAYOUT,
SUBRAMANYAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560061.
43. B. SAI KRISHNA RAO,
S/O B. NAGENDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.4-105,
POSTAL COLONY, KURNOOL-518003.
44. S. SRIPATHI RAO,
S/O M. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MATHRUSHREE NILAYA NO.198,
3RD CROSS NEW BANK COLONY,
KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURU - 560062.
45. SUDHA,
W/O S. DWARKANATH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MATHRUSHREE NILAYA NO.198,
- 28 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
3RD CROSS NEW BANK COLONY,
KONANAKUNTE,
BEGNALURU - 560062.
46. R. JAGANNATH,
S/O LATE RAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.76A 1ST MAIN COLONY,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU - 560055.
47. L. JAYALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE S. MANOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.50/A
NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT,
MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560026.
48. K. KUMUDHA,
W/O T. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.58, 8TH MAIN,
MARATHHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560037.
49. J. LATHA,
W/O R. JAGGANNATH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.76A, 1ST MAIN COLONY
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU - 560055.
50. S. NAGARATHNA,
W/O R. SURESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.342, 2ND A MAIN,
KAVIDHAMANAGAR, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT,
LAGGARE POST, BENGALURU - 560058.
- 29 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
51. R. SURESH KUMAR,
S/O LATE RAJU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.342, 2ND A MAIN,
KAVIDHAMANAGAR, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT,
LAGGARE POST, BENGALURU - 560058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1 - STATE SRI G S KANNUR,
SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADV.
APPEARING FOR R-2 & R3-BDA, SMT SHEELA, ADV. FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA-1/2020 AND IA-3/2021)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION No.50611/03 DATED 29/08/2006.
IN WA NO.960 OF 2007:
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O LATE KAVEERAPPA
2 . SRI SUKANDA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE KAVEERAPPA,
3 . NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE KAVEERAPPA,
4 . RAMESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE KAVEERAPPA,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GUBBALALA VILLAGE,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R S HEGDE, ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS)
- 30 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE 560 020,
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKEY ROAD,KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1 - STATE, SRI G S
KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI,
ADV. APPEARING FOR R2 & R3 - BDA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.17452/2005 DATED 14/03/2007.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 27.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 31 -
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR)
These appeals have been preferred by the appellants
being aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings carried out
by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’, for
short). All these appeals originate from different writ
petitions, each filed before a learned Single Judge of this
Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings carried
out by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The
acquisition of said lands spread across various villages, in
Thalaghattapura, Uttarahalli, Manavarthekaval, Gubbalala,
for formation of ‘Further Extension of Layout named
Banashankari VI Stage’. As the lands of appellants in all
these appeals have been acquired by the BDA for the
common cause for formation of ‘Further Extension of
Layout named Banashankari VI Stage’, all these appeals
are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by
this common judgment.
– 32 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
2. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Uday Holla
representing the learned counsel Shri Prakash T. Hebbar
for appellants in W.A.No.1026/2006 which arises out of
W.P.No.2066/2004. The dispute concerns land in Survey
No. 72 measuring 2.24 acres, which was scheduled for
acquisition.
2 (i) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.1093/2006
which arises out of W.P.Nos.2057-2065/2004, we have
heard the learned counsel Shri C. Shankar Reddy
appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel Shri D.N.
Manjunath for Impleading Applicant on I.A.No.1/2015, the
learned counsel Shri B.R. Vishwanath for Impleading
applicants on I.A.No.1/2014 and the learned counsel Shri
R.B. Sadashivappa for Impleading Proposed R4 to R13.
The disputed lands include Survey Nos. 11, 41/1, 41/2,
41/3, 10/1A, 7/15, 10/2, 43/10, 43/12, spanning 11.2
acres in Banashankari Thalaghattapura Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
– 33 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
2(ii) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.1116/2006,
arising out of Writ Petition Nos. 43126-37/2003, we have
heard the learned counsel Shri T. Ravindra Patil for
appellants, and Shri V. Viswanath for Proposed
Respondent No.4. The disputed land is in Survey No.
61/1A 1(P), with an extent of 1.18 acres.
2(iii) Writ Appeal No. 1164/2006, arising out of Writ
Petition Nos. 54766/2003, 49850/2003, 48158/2003, and
51132/2003, is represented by the learned counsel Shri
Mithun Gerahalli for the appellants and the learned Senior
Counsel Shri D.R. Ravishankar represents the learned
counsel Shri H.S. Santhosh for Proposed Respondent on
I.A.No.1/2015. The disputed lands, located in Survey Nos.
7 Guntas in Sy No. 81/2, 1 Guntas in Sy.No.81/7, 7
Guntas in Sy. No. 81/3, 24.5 Guntas in Sy.No.89/2, 4
Guntas in Sy.No.81/5, 8 Guntas in Sy.No.81/9, 2 Guntas
in Sy no. 8/11, 31 Guntas in Sy no. 77, 33 Guntas in Sy
no. 81/1, 15 Guntas in Sy no. 86/3, 1 Acre 1 Gunta in Sy
– 34 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
no. 80, Site bearing no 41A in Sy no. 7, 41 D in Sy no. 7
were notified for acquisition, covering a significant portion.
The case was scheduled for acquisition, but no case laws
were referenced.
2(iv) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.1167/2006
arising out of Writ Petition No. 4147/2004, we have heard
the learned counsel Shri Hareesh Bhandary T appearing
for the appellants. The disputed land which is located in
Survey No. 15/17, spans 1.10 acres.
2(v) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.1312/2006,
arising out of Writ Petition No. 2057/2004, we have heard
the learned counsel Shri R. Hemanth Raj appearing for the
appellants, and the party-in-person Shri Panchaksharaiah
on I.A.No.1/2023. The lands under dispute include Survey
Nos. 10/3, 10/4, and 23, covering 10/3-0.11, 10/4-0.30,
and 23-4 acres.
2(vi) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.1430/2006
arising out of Writ Petition No. 2240/2004, we have heard
– 35 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
the learned counsel Shri R. Hemantharaju appearing for
the appellant Nos.1 to 3, and the learned counsel Shri T.S.
Venkatesh for Appellant Nos.4 to 7. The disputed lands
include Survey Nos. 43/9 and 43/11, covering an extent of
9.5 and 0.27 guntas, respectively.
2(vii) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.1844/2006
arising out of Writ Petition No. 50611/2003, we have
heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Udaya Holla
representing the learned counsel Shri H.N. Basavaraju for
appellants as well as the learned Senior Counsel Shri M.R.
Rajagopal representing the learned counsel Shri H.S.
Shankar for the appellants. We have also heard the
learned counsel Smt. Sheela for the Impleading Applicant
on I.A.No.1/2020 and I.A.No.3/2021. The disputed land in
Survey No. 72 covers 4.4 acres, and the acquisition was
scheduled.
2(viii) In respect of the appeal in W.A.No.960/2007
arising out of Writ Petition No.17452/2005, we have heard
– 36 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
the learned counsel Shri R.S. Hegde appearing for the
appellants. The disputed lands, located in Survey Nos. 39
and 45, cover 3.3 and 1.1 acres, respectively.
2(ix) Further, we have heard Shri Harisha A.S., the
learned AGA who is representing Respondent No.1 in all
the appeals, inclusive of the learned Senior Counsel Shri
G.S. Kannur who has been engaged in the matters to
represent the Learned Counsel Sri Murugesh V. Charati for
the BDA / Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in all the appeals.
3. The factual matrix of the appeals are as under:
The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the BDA’, for brevity), had decided on
10.10.2002 to acquire land for the formation of a layout
called “Further Extension of Banashankari 6th Stage” in
various villages of Uttarahalli and Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk. Following this decision, a Preliminary
Notification was issued under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act
on 07.11.2002 (published on 21.11.2002) to acquire 1532
– 37 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
acres 17 guntas of land. Notices under Section 17(5) of
the BDA Act were issued to the notified Khatedars and
Anubhavdars in November and December 2002, and public
notices were published in newspapers on 17.11.2002,
inviting objections. Objections were filed by some
landowners and interested persons, and public hearings
were conducted between 10.02.2003 and 24.02.2003.
These objections were considered in the BDA meeting on
28.06.2003, where resolutions were passed i) to approve
the scheme under Section 15(2) of the BDA Act, ii) to seek
Government sanction under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act,
iii) to delete 782 acres 17 guntas from the final notification
while levying betterment tax on the deleted portion, and
iv) to send a proposal to the Government to issue final
notification under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act for the
remaining 750 acres of land, by overruling objections.
4. Thereafter, the Government sanctioned the
scheme under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act on 04.09.2003
– 38 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
and the Final Notification under Section 19(1) of the BDA
Act was issued on 09.09.2003. Further, a Notification
under Section 20 of the BDA Act was issued on
12.09.2003, levying betterment tax on 657 acres 15
guntas, while 127 acres 02 guntas were excluded as they
belonged to BWSSB, KIADB, private layouts, and Green
Belt areas. Notices under Sections 9 & 10 of the Land
Acquisition Act were issued in September 2003, and public
notices in newspapers were issued on 14.09.2003 inviting
objections/claims. After hearing, awards were passed and
approved by the Authority, and thereafter possession of
580 acres 18 guntas of land was handed over to BDA’s
Engineering Section for layout formation. However, the
possession of the remaining land was delayed due to Court
stay orders.
5. On 09.01.2004, BDA invited applications from
Revenue site holders for alternative sites, receiving 262
applications, with scrutiny ongoing. After the disposal of
– 39 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
related writ petitions, 107 additional applications were
received from the revenue site owners for allotment of
alternate sites. Meanwhile, BDA undertook developmental
works, including land leveling and drainage formation,
spending crores of rupees. Out of 750 acres acquired
under the final notification, a total of 5991 residential sites
of different dimensions were formed, of which 4983 were
allotted to various applicants.
6. The Appellants in these Writ Appeals challenging
the acquisition can be categorized as: (a) Landowners who
were cultivating land or had constructed residential/non-
residential buildings, (b) Site Owners who purchased sites
in agricultural lands, unauthorized layouts, or converted
layouts with approvals, (c) Owners of Garden and Nursery
Lands, (d) Owners of Lands in Green Belt Areas, and (e)
Persons in Possession through GPA, sale agreements, or
allotment letters. The challenge to the Preliminary and
Final Notifications was based on various grounds, including
– 40 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
procedural lapses in land acquisition, improper
consideration of objections, inclusion of
developed/converted lands, and arbitrary
exclusions/inclusions. The writ appeals arise from these
challenges where Appellants seek relief against the
acquisition and its consequences as decided by learned
Single Judges of this Court in various orders.
7. Being aggrieved by the preliminary and final
notifications issued in respect of the schedule lands, the
appellants having no other alternative, have preferred writ
petitions as aforestated before a learned Single Judge of
this Court. The learned Single Judge proceeded to reject
the said writ petitions and thereby has upheld the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands. It
is the said orders which are under challenge in the present
writ appeals by urging various grounds.
8. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Udaya Holla
representing the appellants inclusive of the respective
– 41 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
learned counsel for appellants in all these appeals contend
that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) are arbitrary,
discriminatory, and violative of their fundamental rights
under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
They argue that while the Preliminary Notification
proposed to acquire 1532 acres and 17 guntas, the Final
Notification reduced the acquisition to approximately 750
acres, thereby excluding over 50% of the originally
notified land. However, the deletions were made
selectively, favouring influential individuals while
continuing the acquisition of lands belonging to the
appellants without any objective criteria. Such selective
exclusion amounts to discrimination and renders the entire
acquisition process arbitrary and illegal.
9. The learned Senior counsel for appellants further
contend that they had duly filed objections to the
acquisition proceedings, pointing out that their lands were
– 42 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
either residential, converted, or required for their
livelihood. However, the BDA failed to consider their
objections in a fair and transparent manner, and had
proceeded with the acquisition without granting them an
opportunity of being heard. It is also their contention that
the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) approved the
scheme mechanically without conducting a proper inquiry
or providing justification for the inclusion or exclusion of
lands. Additionally, the State Government, without
independent application of mind, sanctioned the scheme
under Section 18 of the BDA Act, 1976, further violating
the principles of natural justice.
10. It is the further contention of the learned Senior
counsel for appellants that the deletion of large extents of
land from acquisition was carried out arbitrarily. In some
villages, more than half of the originally notified lands
were excluded in a scattered and inconsistent manner. For
instance, in Gubbalala Village, out of 367 acres and 22
– 43 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
guntas initially notified, only 142 acres and 1 gunta were
finally acquired. Similarly, in other villages, substantial
portions were excluded without clear justification. The
respondents failed to provide any rational basis for these
deletions, demonstrating a clear case of favoritism and
arbitrary exercise of power. The failure of the State to file
an affidavit justifying these exclusions reinforces the lack
of transparency in the process.
11. The learned Senior counsel also challenges the
jurisdiction of the BDA in acquiring lands situated outside
the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. It is contended that
many of the lands under acquisition fall under Village
Panchayat jurisdiction, which is beyond the purview of the
BDA under Section 2(c) of the BDA Act, 1976. The BDA,
being a statutory authority established for urban
development, does not have the authority to acquire lands
in rural areas, unless specifically notified by the State
Government in the Karnataka Gazette. Since no such
– 44 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
notification has been issued for several villages under
acquisition, it is contended that the entire process is ultra
vires the BDA Act and legally unsustainable.
12. Additionally, it is the contention of the learned
Senior counsel for appellants that the acquisition lacks a
genuine public purpose. The BDA has been acquiring lands
ostensibly for the formation of layouts but has failed to
implement several previous schemes effectively. In many
instances, acquired lands have remained undeveloped,
and instead of being used for public benefit, they have
been commercially exploited, leading to profiteering rather
than public welfare. In the case of V.A. Narasimha
Reddy v. Government of Karnataka, (2012 SCC
Online Kar 5254), the court noted that when substantial
portions of land are excluded in a scattered manner, it
becomes practically impossible to implement the original
layout plan. The learned counsel for appellants contend
that the power of eminent domain must be exercised for a
– 45 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
just and legitimate public purpose. The absence of
restrictions on the sale and transfer of allotted sites post-
acquisition indicates that the BDA is acting more like a real
estate agency than a public development authority. The
relevant portion of the caselaw is extracted thus:
“9. A perusal of the above statement
specifies that in the preliminary notification it
was proposed to acquire 1532 acres 17 guntas.
In the final notification large extent of land
measuring 782 acres 17 guntas came to be left
out. Further the award was passed to an extent
of 447.25 acres. After taking possession of the
land under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act certain lands came to be denotified, in
respect of certain lands proposals are sent to
Government for denotification, award was
withdrawn in respect of certain lands, certain
lands are left out on account of parallel
acquisition proceedings, certain lands are left
out on account of Court cases and certain lands
are denotified during the pendency of writ
proceedings. In the circumstances this Court by
Order dated 17.06.2011 directed respondent
– 46 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007Nos. 2 and 3 to produce a plan specifying the
entire extent of land notified in the preliminary
notification, the land left out in the final
notification, the lands left out under Section
16(2) notification, lands denotified before filing
of the writ petitions and also during the
pendency of the writ petitions in different
colours. Accordingly the respondent Nos. 2 and
3 filed a plan showing these details. A perusal of
the plan produced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3
manifestly establishes the fact that the lands
left out and denotified from the acquisition
proceedings are not situated in one compact
block nor on one side of the proposed layout.
On the other hand it is seen from the plan that
lands left out, denotified and acquired are
located in different bits and they are
intermingled. From this plan it is clear that the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have arbitrarily left out
the lands from acquisition proceedings and
acquired certain bits of land here and there.
Therefore practically it is not possible to form a
layout of residential sites as initially conceived
by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. No material is
placed on record to show that it is possible to
– 47 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007form a residential layout in the bits of lands
acquired by them which are situated in different
places and when they are not linked to each
other. When the very purpose of forming a
layout of residential sites is not possible, then
the impugned notifications are liable to be
quashed on the ground that it is not practically
possible to implement the project.
10. The manner in which the respondents
notified the lands and denotified the lands
specifies that the respondents have adopted the
policy of pick and choose in acquiring certain
lands and leaving out certain lands from the
acquisition proceedings. In identical
circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of
Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through Lrs v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 5 SCC 553] , held as
under:
“86. We also find merit in the appellants’
plea that the acquisition of their land is vitiated
due to violation of the doctrine of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. A
reading of the survey report shows that the
– 48 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007committee constituted by the State Government
had recommended release of land measuring
18.9725 ha., Many parcels of land were
released from acquisition because the
landowners had already raised constructions
and were using the same as dwelling units. A
large chunk of land measuring 4.3840 ha., was
not acquired apparently because the same
belonged to an ex-member of the Legislative
Assembly. The appellants had also raised
constructions on their land and were using the
same for residential and agricultural purposes.
Why their land was not left out from acquisition
has not been explained in the counter-affidavit
filed by the respondents. The High Court should
have treated this as sufficient for recording a
finding that the respondents had adopted the
policy of pick and choose in acquiring some
parcels of land and this amounted to violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed it has not
been pleaded by the respondents that the
appellants cannot invoke the doctrine of equality
because the other parcels of land were illegally
left out from acquisition.”
– 49 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
11. It is seen from the record that out of
total extent of land notified in the preliminary
notification respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had
actually taken possession of only 339 acres 34
guntas and the remaining land is left out from
acquisition proceedings. According to the
petitioners this works out to be, actual
possession taken was only 22.17% and the
remaining 77.83% is left out from the
acquisition proceedings. The respondent Nos. 2
and 3 in their statement of objections as per
Annexure R-2 stated the reasons for deletion as
“conversion, acquired for B.W.S.S.B. pipeline,
built up area, nursery and garden, private
layout, green belt area” etc. A perusal of
Annexure R-2 specifies that no reasons are
mentioned for deletion of 252.16 acres. The
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced any
documents in support of the reasons assigned
by them for deletion of certain lands from the
acquisition proceedings. From this material on
record it is clear that arbitrarily and for
extraneous considerations the respondent Nos.
2 and 3 have deleted the lands from the
acquisition proceedings. The manner in which
– 50 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
the acquisition proceedings went on is nothing
short of gross misuse and abuse of statutory
powers vested in respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
12. It is not in dispute that respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 initiated acquisition proceedings
for formation of extension of Banashankari VI
Stage Layout and also for formation of the
approach roads to connect the layout to
Kanakapura – Bangalore Main Road. In the
preliminary notification the land belonging to
respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in Survey No. 226 of
B.M. Kaval Village measuring 10.12 acres and
5.12 guntas was proposed to be acquired in the
preliminary Notification dated 07.11.2002. But
in the final Notification dated 09.09.2003 the
land in Survey No. 226 came to be left out. But,
surprisingly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 executed
two registered sale deeds on 18.02.2009 and
04.04.2009 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6
selling 1163.52 Sq. Mtrs. and 712.18 Sq. Mtrs.
in Survey No. 107 belonging to the petitioners
as per Annexures-T and T1. The reason
assigned by respondents 2 and 3 for executing
the two sale deeds that respondent Nos. 4 and
5 have voluntarily given a portion of the land in
– 51 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
Survey No. 226 for formation of road in the
layout in question. On one hand the land
belonging to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 proposed to
be acquired in the preliminary notification is
subsequently dropped in the final notification
and on the other hand out of land acquired a
portion of was sold to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on
the ground that they had voluntarily given up a
portion of the land in Survey No. 226 for
formation of a road in the layout. Under the
B.D.A. Act and Rules respondent Nos. 2 and 3
have no authority to sell the acquired land to
respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On the face of it, the
manner in which the acquisition proceedings are
conducted is nothing short of abuse of power for
extraneous considerations. There cannot be a
better illustration than this in proof of colourable
exercise of power.
20. The BDA Act is a special law for
acquisition of land for planned development of
Bangalore City. Any scheme formulated under
the Act shall specify the immediate need, extent
of lands required for proposed sites and other
civic amenities like roads, parks, play grounds,
community purpose, drains etc. The material on
– 52 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
record discloses that nearly 78% of the land
proposed in the scheme are left from acquisition
and only 22% of the land is acquired. Even out
of this 22% land acquired, there are certain
proposals pending before the Government for
denotification. It is not shown by the
respondents as to how they will implement the
project. No material is placed on record to show
that the layout plan is approved by the
Government. Several laws relating to Greenbelt
area, Comprehensive Development Plan,
Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area,
Minor Forest Area etc., are violated. There may
be several other illegalities and acts of abuse of
power which are not brought on record. The key
attributes of good governance like transparency,
responsibility and accountability are totally
absent and writ large in the instant case. In the
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion
that the matter requires a thorough enquiry.”
13. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants further
highlights that despite substantial modifications to the
original scheme, no fresh sanction was sought under
– 53 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
Section 18 of the BDA Act. Once the acquisition plan
undergoes major changes, fresh Government approval is
necessary, failing which the acquisition loses its legal
sanctity. The BDA’s failure to obtain fresh sanction after
modifying the acquisition by deleting more than 50% of
the lands, renders the entire process invalid and void ab
initio.
14. Another significant contention raised by the
learned Senior counsel for appellants is the lapse of
acquisition due to inaction by the BDA. It is contended
that even years after the Final Notification, no award has
been passed and physical possession of several lands have
not been taken. Under Section 27 of the BDA Act and
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and
Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition must be deemed
to have lapsed due to the failure of the BDA to take
necessary steps within the statutory period. The prolonged
– 54 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
inaction by the BDA results in severe financial hardship,
uncertainty, and deprivation of property rights for the
appellants. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to a ruling
of this Court in the case of Smt. B.N. Anitha and Ors v.
BDA and Ors (W.A. Nos.3382-84/2012 & 2990-
3009/2013 C/W WRIT APPEAL Nos.1598-
1620/2012). In the said case, this Court reaffirmed
that, failure to take possession effectively rebuts the
presumption under Section 16(2) of the Karnataka
Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, further
supporting the appellants’ claims. The relevant portion of
the case law is given below:
“28. It is therefore necessary to point out
that if the acquisition proceedings had been
completed by taking over possession in
accordance with law, name of BDA for whose
benefit the land has been acquired could have
been incorporated in the revenue records. There
was no room for continuing the name of the writ
petitioners as owners and persons in
– 55 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007possession. Hence, the provision contained
under Section 16(2) of Karnataka Amendment
to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, will not come
to the help of the BDA to contend that
possession has been taken over. Presumption, if
any, arising under Section 16(2) is rebutted by
producing the revenue records right from 2001-
02 till 2016. No other document is produced by
the BDA to show that actual possession was
indeed taken over and the property in question
was made use for formation of the layout.
29. Thus, although learned Single Judge
has given several additional reasons for setting
aside the acquisition while directing inquiry to
be conducted under the provisions of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, for the aforesaid
reasons which are also some of the reasons
assigned by the learned Single Judge,
particularly regarding arbitrary action and
discriminatory treatment meted out to the writ
petitioners in not considering favourably the
request for de-notification, we are of the view
that the conclusion reached by the learned
Single Judge while setting aside the acquisition
– 56 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007is just and legal. However, we must not loose
sight of the fact that the land belonging to the
appellants in the connected appeal has been
utilized by the BDA without acquiring the same
and without paying compensation for them.
Their grievance needs to be redressed either by
providing alternate land or by paying
compensation in accordance with law.
Therefore, the right available to these
appellants to proceed against the BDA in this
connection is kept in tact and is indeed
reserved.”
15. The learned Senior counsel for appellants also
points out procedural lapses in the acquisition process. It
is contended that the land owners were not issued proper
notices under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act, and their
objections were neither considered nor addressed. Many of
the lands under acquisition contain residential houses,
temples, bore wells, and agricultural developments, yet
the BDA failed to conduct a proper site inspection before
issuing the Final Notification. It is contended that before
– 57 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
initiating acquisition proceedings, the failure to recognize
the developed nature of these lands, further undermines
the legality of the acquisition process.
16. The learned Senior counsel for appellants rely on
precedents where similar acquisitions have been quashed
due to arbitrary deletions and selective acquisition. In the
case of BEML Employees House Building Coop.
Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, ((2005) 9 SCC
248)), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all exercises
of statutory discretion must be based on reasonable
grounds and cannot lapse into arbitrariness, as seen in the
present case. The relevant portion of the said judgment
reads thus:
“7. It was urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant that whatever be the
recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer
in his report under Section 5-A, they were
merely recommendations and the State
Government was not bound to accept them. The
– 58 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007State Government had wide discretion to accept
or reject the said report under Section 5-A of the
Act and take independent decision to continue or
discontinue the acquisition proceedings in
respect of any particular land proposed to be
acquired. Wide the discretion may be, but not
wild. All exercise of statutory discretion must be
based on reasonable grounds and cannot lapse
into arbitrariness or caprice which is anathema to
the rule of law envisaged in Article 14 of the
Constitution. The facts placed on record do not
indicate that the case of the fifth respondent was
(sic not) similar, if not identical, to that of the
other landowners, whose lands were dropped
from the acquisition proceedings. Neither the
appellant, nor the State Government has been
able to show us any rational distinction between
the case of the fifth respondent and the cases of
the other landowners, whose lands were
excluded from the acquisition. When this is so, it
appears to us that the vice of hostile
discrimination infects and vitiates the decision
taken by the State Government to continue with
the acquisition against the fifth respondent’s
land.
– 59 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
8. A faint argument was made by the learned
counsel for the State Government that inasmuch
as the Government’s files had been called for
and perused, there might have been some
reason on the file justifying the non-exclusion of
the fifth respondent’s land from the acquisition
proceedings. It is difficult to accept the
suggestion, for if there was any such reason the
High Court would not have struck down the
acquisition proceedings as hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution. In any event, to put the matter
beyond cavil, we adjourned the matter twice to
enable the learned counsel for the State
Government to produce the relevant files before
us. Despite the adjournments granted, no such
files have been produced and we were informed
that the files are “not traceable”. In this state of
record, we find it difficult to accept the argument
of the learned counsel for the State Government
9. The learned counsel for the appellant
alternatively argued that even if the fifth
respondent succeeded in establishing
discrimination in his case, the High Court was
not justified in quashing the preliminary
– 60 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He
reiterated the argument that, at the most, the
final notification could have been quashed and
the authorities under the Act directed to proceed
afresh from the stage of submitting a report
under Section 5-A of the Act. He also contended
that the report under Section 5-A had not been
accepted as the Revenue Secretary had made a
spot inspection and decided not to agree with the
report of the Land Acquisition Officer. As we
have already pointed out, we have no material
placed on record to show as to what really
moved the Revenue Secretary or the State
Government to overrule the recommendations of
the Land Acquisition Officer only with respect to
the land of the fifth respondent. Nor are we
impressed by the argument that only the final
notification had to be quashed and the matter be
remitted to the authorities below. Once it is held
that the action was discriminatory and hit by
Article 14 of the Constitution, then the High
Court was justified in quashing the whole
proceedings, including the notification under
Section 4(1), as prayed for by the fifth
respondent.”
– 61 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
17. Similarly, in the case of Hari Ram v. State of
Haryana, ((2010) 3 SCC 621)), the Hon’ble Apex Court
emphasized that the State Government must exercise its
powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act with
fairness and consistency, ensuring that similarly situated
landowners are treated equally. The appellants argue that
the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the unique
facts of their cases, instead relying on generalized
judgments without conducting an independent
assessment. It is contended that in many cases, the
learned Single Judge acknowledged the discriminatory
nature of the acquisition but erroneously upheld it,
directing the appellants to approach the BDA for
reconsideration–an exercise that had already proven
futile. The relevant portion of the extract is given below.
“39. As noticed above, prior to 26-10-2007
the State Government did not have uniform
policy concerning withdrawal from acquisition.
– 62 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007As regards the guidelines provided in the Letter
dated 26-6-1991, this Court has already held
that classification on the basis of nature of
construction cannot be validly made and such
policy is not based on intelligible differentia and
a rational basis. What appears from the
available material is that for release of the lands
under the subject acquisition, no policy has
been adhered to. This leads to an irresistible
conclusion that no firm policy with regard to
release of land from acquisition existed.
40. It is true that any action or order
contrary to law does not confer any right upon
any person for similar treatment. It is equally
true that a landowner whose land has been
acquired for public purpose by following the
prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter
of right for release of his/her land from
acquisition but where the State Government
exercises its power under Section 48 of the Act
for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a
particular land, the landowners who are
similarly situated have a right of similar
treatment by the State Government. Equality of
– 63 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007citizens’ rights is one of the fundamental pillars
on which the edifice of the rule of law rests. All
actions of the State have to be fair and for
legitimate reasons.
41. The Government has obligation of acting
with substantial fairness and consistency in
considering the representations of the
landowners for withdrawal from acquisition
whose lands have been acquired under the
same acquisition proceedings. The State
Government cannot pick and choose some
landowners and release their land from
acquisition and deny the same benefit to other
landowners by creating artificial distinction.
Passing different orders in exercise of its power
under Section 48 of the Act in respect of
persons similarly situated relating to the same
acquisition proceedings and for the same public
purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution and must be held to be
discriminatory.”
18. Concluding their arguments, respective learned
Counsel for the appellants submit that the acquisition
– 64 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
proceedings are unconstitutional, illegal, and violative of
their fundamental rights. The selective exclusion of lands
without justification, the lack of jurisdiction of the BDA
over village panchayat lands, the failure to obtain fresh
sanction for modified acquisition plans, the absence of a
genuine public purpose, and the failure to take possession
within the statutory timeframe, all render the acquisition
legally unsustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v.
State of Haryana, ((2013) 4 SCC 210)), emphasized
that when similarly placed lands are exempted, the State
cannot justify the acquisition of only a few remaining
portions. Thus, the learned counsel for appellants pray this
Court to set aside the impugned orders, quash the
acquisition proceedings, and grant them appropriate relief
in the interest of justice and equity. The relevant portion
of the extract is given below.
– 65 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
“16. A reading of the above-reproduced
notings makes it clear that while the Additional
Director and the Director, Urban Estates
Department had treated the appellants’ case as
similar to M/s Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and
others, the Chief Minister ordered the issue of
Notification under Section 6(1) in respect of the
land of Appellant 1 by assuming that major
portion of it was lying vacant. Of course, he also
ordered that the vacant lands belonging to M/s
Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and Jawala
Textiles may also be notified for acquisition. It is
a different thing that in the second round also
the lands owned by M/s Rani Shaver Poultry
Farm Ltd. and four others were released during
the pendency of the writ petitions and the civil
appeal filed by them. It is intriguing that while
ordering the issue of notification under Section
6(1), the Chief Minister did not even advert to
the objections filed by the appellants and the
report made by the Land Acquisition Collector
under Section 5-A(2). He was totally oblivious of
the fact that the appellants had already utilised
substantial portion of their land for establishing
stud farm and for other activities, like, animal
– 66 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
husbandry, agriculture, horticulture, nursery
and dairy farming and had also constructed a
large number of buildings by spending crores of
rupees and planted 5000 trees. Be that as it
may, the direction given by the Chief Minister
for the issue of notification under Section 6(1)
without considering the objections of the
appellants and other relevant factors must be
held as vitiated due to non-application of mind.
17. What is most surprising is that not only
the Chief Minister, but the High Court also
overlooked the fact that after the Chief Minister
had ordered acquisition of vacant land belonging
to M/s Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and others
and Notification dated 11-9-1990 was issued,
the State Government and/or HUDA executed
agreement with them and released the acquired
land leaving out the appellants’ land and in this
manner they were subjected to hostile
discrimination.
31. As a sequel to the above discussion, we
hold that the decision taken at the level of the
Chief Minister was not in consonance with the
– 67 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
scheme of Section 5-A(2) read with Section
6(1). We further hold that the State
Government’s refusal to release the appellants’
land resulted in violation of their right to
equality granted under Article 14 of the
Constitution.”
19. The learned Senior Counsel Shri G.S. Kannur who
has been engaged in the matters to represent the Learned
Counsel Sri Murugesh V. Charati for the BDA / Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in all the appeals contends that the land
acquisition proceedings carried out for the formation of the
layout “Further Extension of Banashankari 6th Stage” were
transparent, fair, and devoid of any discrimination,
arbitrariness, or mala fide intentions. The deletion of
certain parcels of land from the acquisition process was
done based on specific, legitimate grounds and does not
invalidate the entire acquisition nor imply any
discriminatory practice. Such exclusions of the included
areas were lands which were already duly converted for
non-agricultural use, extensively built-up localities,
– 68 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
recognized nurseries, garden lands, charitable institutions,
religious establishments, and areas already acquired for
other governmental or developmental schemes. Hence, it
is contended that these deletions were reasonable and
justified by practical considerations and the ground
realities and did not reflect any arbitrary or discriminatory
exercise of authority.
20. The Learned Senior counsel for the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) further contends that more
than 80% of the residential sites formed from the acquired
area of 750 acres have already been allotted to various
applicants. Substantial expenditure, amounting to crores
of rupees, has already been incurred for developing the
acquired lands by constructing roads, drainage systems,
levelling, and other infrastructure improvements. Thus,
quashing the acquisition at this advanced stage, would be
impractical and detrimental to the larger public interest.
– 69 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
21. The Learned Senior Counsel Shri G.S. Kannur
further contends that the development scheme was
properly prepared and executed in full compliance with
Sections 15 and 16 of the Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA) Act, 1976. The preliminary notification
under Section 17(1) clearly outlined the scheme details,
survey numbers, extent of land proposed for acquisition,
and the names of khatedars and anubhavadars. All
necessary modifications after the preliminary notification,
including deletion of land parcels, were within the scope of
permissible adjustments contemplated under Section 18 of
the BDA Act, rather than constituting an entirely new
scheme.
22. The Learned Senior Counsel contends that the
objections filed by landowners and interested parties were
duly considered by the BDA during village-level camps
conducted from February to March 2003. These objections
were deliberated upon in the BDA meeting dated
– 70 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
28.06.2003 (Subject No.177/2003), and appropriate
decisions were taken. As mandated by the BDA Act, there
is no requirement for personal or oral hearings beyond
consideration of objections in writing. The Government,
upon careful examination and consideration of all material
facts, appropriately sanctioned the scheme under Section
18(3) of the Act, thus ensuring procedural compliance.
23. It is the further contention of the learned Senior
counsel regarding the minor discrepancies raised by
petitioners, such as the appearance of names of deceased
persons or previous owners in the notifications, the BDA
has clarified that these issues stem from reliance on the
existing revenue records. Notifications were issued based
on available records, and extensive public notice ensured
ample opportunity for objections. Therefore, such
discrepancies do not materially prejudice the acquisition
proceedings. However, the BDA recognizes the rights of
genuine subsequent purchasers who acquired properties
– 71 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
through registered sale deeds prior to the preliminary
notification but whose names were not updated in revenue
records. It is contended that these purchasers, would be
entitled to appropriate modifications in awards to claim
compensation or alternate sites, as applicable.
24. Finally, the learned Senior counsel contends that
the BDA acknowledges the hardships faced by site owners
whose revenue sites have been acquired. In line with
judicial precedents set in cases like G.R.Jayamma and
ors vs State and ors (WP No.20875-938/2001)
disposed on 20.07.2001 and Junjamma v. Bangalore
Development Authority, (2004 SCC Online Kar 454),
the BDA affirms its commitment to providing suitable relief
by way of priority allotment of alternate sites (typically of
dimension 30’x40′), subject to the fulfillment of conditions
prescribed under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules,
1984. Thus, the acquisition proceedings stand legal,
– 72 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
justified, and executed transparently, in strict conformity
with statutory provisions and the larger public interest.
25. The learned counsel for the respondents have
relied on the following Judgements to profoundly
substantiate their stand:
i) Lila Ram (Pt.) v. Union of India, (1975) 2 SCC 547
(para 7)
“7. Reference has also been made by Mr
Iyengar to the fact that the lands of some others
which were also earlier proposed to be acquired
under the notification were subsequently ordered
not to be acquired. This fact too, in our opinion,
would not militate against the validity of the
acquisition of the land of the appellant.
According to Section 5-A of the Act, any person
interested in any land which has been notified
under Section 4, sub-section (1), as being
needed or likely to be needed for a public
purpose or for a company may, within thirty
days after the issue of the notification, object to
the acquisition of the land or of any land in the
– 73 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
locality, as the case may be. The objector is then
given opportunity of being heard and thereafter
a report is submitted to the appropriate
Government by the Collector containing his
recommendations on the objections. It is for the
appropriate Government thereafter to take the
decision on the objections. There is, therefore,
no inherent infirmity in the decision of the
Government in accepting some of the objections
and rejecting others. The question as to what
factors weighed with the authorities concerned in
deciding not to acquire the land of others need
not be gone into these proceedings because that
would not in any way affect the validity of the
acquisition of the land of the appellant.”
ii) D. Hemachandra Sagar v. State of Karnataka,
(1998 SCC OnLine Kar 549 : ILR 1998 Kar 4172).
The relevant portion of the said judgment passed by this
Court, reads thus:
“11. The next contention that the scheme
should contain all the particulars enumerated in
– 74 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007Section 16 of the Act even before the publication
of the notification under Section 17(1) is also
untenable; If the scheme contains the broad
factors in respect of the particulars enumerated
in Section 16 it would be sufficient compliance
with the preparation of the scheme. It is not the
case of the petitioners that no scheme is drawn
up by the BDA. Their objection is that there was
no prior approval of the Government for the
scheme.
12. It is also material to see that the BDA,
after preparing the scheme, shall draw up a
notification stating the fact of a scheme having
been made and the limits of the area comprised
therein, and naming a place where particulars of
the scheme, a map of the area comprised
therein, a statement specifying the land which is
proposed to be acquired, for being seen at all
reasonable hours, under Section 17(1) of the
BDA Act.
It is not the case of the petitioners that the
BDA did not draw any notification nor is it
contended that the notification did not contain all
– 75 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007those particulars nor was it contended that the
scheme and the map were not kept for
inspection. In the absence of any pleading in this
behalf, it is not open to the petitioners to
contend that the scheme was not prepared in
accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the BDA
Act.
In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujrat
[(1998) 4 SCC 387.] , the Supreme Court
considering the consequences of want of
particulars in the pleading has held as follows:
“It is not enough to allege that a particular
rule or any provision has no been complied with.
It is a requirement of good pleading to give
details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged
that there is non-compliance with a statutory
requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken
on such an allegation which is devoid of any
particular. No issue can be raised on a plea the
foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule
nisi is issued, it is not always for the department
to justify its action when the Court finds that a
plea has been advanced without any substance,
– 76 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007though ordinarily the department may have to
place its full cards before the Court.”
As stated supra, the pleading lacks particulars
regarding the notification, exhibition of scheme
and the map at a named place for inspection. In
the absence of such pleading, there is no
justification for the petitioners to contend that
the scheme was not prepared in accordance with
Sections 15 and 16 of the BDA Act.”
iii) Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan,
((1986) 2 SCC 516)) . The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads thus:
“15. We next proceed to consider a
contention lacking in merit which has
unfortunately been accepted by the High Court
namely that the Act infringes Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Article 300-A was not in force when
the Act was enacted. Article 31(1) of the
Constitution which was couched in the same
language was however in force. Article 31-C
gave protection to the Act even if it infringed
– 77 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007Article 31. Let us assume that the action of
acquiring private properties should satisfy now
Article 300-A also because the proceedings to
acquire the land started in the instant case after
Article 300-A came into force. Let us also
assume that a law should be fair and reasonable
and not arbitrary and that a law should also
satisfy the principle of fairness in order to be
effective and let us also assume that the said
principle of fairness lies outside Article 14. We
are assuming all these, without deciding these
questions, since the action can be upheld even if
all these assumptions are well-founded. What is
it that is being done now in the instant case?
Certain vacant lands lying inside a municipal
area are being acquired for providing housing
accommodation after paying an amount which is
computed in accordance with a method
considered to be a fair one by courts. The
purpose for which the lands are acquired is a
public purpose. The owners are given
opportunity to make their representations before
the notification is issued. All the requirements of
valid exercise of the power of eminent domain
even in the sense in which it is understood in the
– 78 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007United States of America where property rights
are given greater protection than what is
required to be done in our country are fulfilled by
the Act. Yet the High Court, with respect,
grievously erred in holding that even assuming
that the provisions of Chapter V of the Act are
protected from challenge under Articles 14, 19
and 31 of the Constitution due to the
applicability of Article 31-C of the Constitution
still the impugned provisions of the Act are
required to be struck down as the said provisions
are neither just nor fair nor reasonable.
16. Then in the end we have to consider
the argument based on Article 21 of the
Constitution which is urged on behalf of the
respondents. Article 21 essentially deals with
personal liberty. It has little to do with the right
to own property as such. Here we are not
concerned with a case where the deprivation of
property would lead to deprivation of life or
liberty or livelihood. On the other hand land is
being acquired to improve the living conditions of
a large number of people. To rely upon Article 21
of the Constitution for striking down the
– 79 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007provisions of the Act amounts to a clear
misapplication of the great doctrine enshrined in
Article 21. We have no hesitation in rejecting the
argument. Land ceiling laws, laws providing for
acquisition of land for providing housing
accommodation, laws imposing ceiling on urban
property etc. cannot be struck down by invoking
Article 21 of the Constitution.”
iv) Ahuja Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,
((2003) 5 SCC 365))
“12. This Court in Winky Dilawari v. Amritsar
Improvement Trust [(1996) 11 SCC 644] has
taken the view that failure to serve personal
notices on the persons whose names have not
been mutated in the official record-of-rights in
pursuance of any sale in their favour does not
vitiate the proceedings for acquisition. Similar
view was taken in W.B. Housing Board v.
Brijendra Prasad Gupta [(1997) 6 SCC 207]
wherein this Court observed: (SCC p. 214, para
8)
– 80 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
“It is no part of the duty of the Collector to
make a roving inquiry into ownership of the
persons. We are of the opinion that the
requirements of the law were met when notices
were served upon the recorded owners as per
the record-of-rights. Again we do not think in a
case like the present one, it is for the Collector to
make enquiries from the registration office to
find out if the land had since been sold by the
recorded owners. In Winky Dilawari v. Amritsar
Improvement Trust [(1996) 11 SCC 644], this
Court observed that the public authorities were
not expected to go on making enquiries in the
Sub-Registrar’s office as to who would be the
owner of the property. The Collector in the
present case was thus justified in relying on the
official record being the record-of-rights as to
who were the owners of the land sought to be
requisitioned and prudence did not require any
further enquiry to be made. We are therefore of
the view that notices were properly served under
Section 3(2) of the Act on the owners of the
land.
– 81 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
13. It could be seen from the above order
that service of notice on a person shown as
owner or occupier in the record-of-rights is
sufficient even though the said person had
already sold the land prior to the said notification
unless it is substantiated otherwise that the
authorities concerned had knowledge of the
rights or interest of any person other than those
found recorded as owner/occupier in the revenue
records. It is further held that the Collector is not
obliged to make a roving enquiry about the
ownership of the land. If the name of the
purchaser is not yet entered in the record-of-
rights then non-service on such a person does
not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
Admittedly, the appellant had not got his name
entered in the revenue records as owner or
occupant of the said land and therefore he could
not complain about non-service of notice on him
nor about the failure to grant a hearing to him.
Contention that as per provision of the Land
Revenue Act there was no obligation on his part
to either inform the Revenue Authorities about
the sale in his favour or to request them to
transfer the katha in his name cannot stand as it
– 82 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
has not been brought on record with reference to
any pleadings with supporting documents that in
fact the appellant had made payment for making
the necessary entries in the record-of-rights and
the register in his name at the time of
registration of the sale deed in his favour. This
apart, failure to make entries on the part of the
Revenue Authorities by itself would not cast any
obligation on the authorities under the Act to
make a roving enquiry and try to locate an
owner who may have subsequently purchased
the land from the previous owner. Failure on the
part of the Revenue Authority to make entry in
the register of mutation in favour of the
subsequent owner would not render the
acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of
non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the
acquisition proceedings or service thereof.”
v) Junjamma v. Bangalore Development Authority,
(2004 SCC OnLine Kar 454). The relevant portion of
the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads thus:
– 83 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007“33. Re. Point No. (9):– In law there is no
prohibition for acquiring a land converted from
agricultural use to either residential use
industrial use or commercial use from being
acquired for the purpose of formation of a layout.
The conversion of land from one user to another
user would not in any way affect the power of
the Government to acquire such land. If the
Government proposes to acquire a converted
land probably they have to pay a higher amount
of compensation than what they have to pay to
agricultural lands taking into consideration the
potential user of the land and the improvements
which the owner of the land has made
consequent to such con version. But such
conversion does not take away the power of the
authorities or the Government to acquire the
said land for the formation of a layout.
34. Similarly, there is no substance in the
contention that having regard to the user of the
land acquired, namely non-residential purpose;
industrial purpose, commercial purpose, lands,
used for nursery and garden cannot be used for
residential purpose without there being
– 84 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
appropriate permission obtained from the
planning authority. In fact, in this regard the
learned counsels for the petitioners relied on a
judgment of this Court in the case of B.R. Baliga
v. Town Municipal Council, Udupi, D.K. [1995 (4)
Kar. L.J. 408.] where it has been held that when
land which is acquired is an agricultural land
acquired for the purpose of forming a residential
layout the permission of the Planning Authority is
required for the change of land use. Without
such permission the land cannot be used for
residential purposes. That again does not affect
the power of the Authority or the Government to
acquire the land. It is only after acquisition of the
land that the authority can seek permission for
change of land use. The very fact than there is at
provision for change of land use implies that the
owner of the land is entitled to approach the
planning-authorities for change of land use. But
such a request is to be made by the owner of the
land. The ownership of the land could be
acquired by the Authority by the mode of
acquisition. Therefore, not obtaining prior
permission from the Planning Authority for
change of land use does not in anyway vitiate
– 85 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
the acquisition of land. In fact while according
sanction under Section 18(3) of the Act, the
Government has categorically stated that the
sanction sought for is granted subject to the
condition that the Authority shall obtain
permission for change of land use. Therefore, not
obtaining prior permission for change of land use
would in no way vitiate the acquisition
proceedings.”
vi) G.R.Jayamma and ors vs State and ors (WP
No.20875-938/2001 disposed on 20.07.2001). The
relevant portion of the said judgment rendered by this
Court, reads thus:
“9. After the matter was heard further, a
broad consensus was reached between
petitioners and BDA. Having regard to the special
facts and circumstances of these cases,
petitioners and BDA submitted that these
petitions may be disposed of recording the
following terms agreed between them:-
– 86 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
(a) Petitioners hereby withdraw their
objections to the acquisition and assure full
support and co-operating to BDA in forming the
layout.;
(b) Petitioners shall register themselves as
applicants for allotment under the Bangalore
Development Authority [Allotment of sites]
Rules, 1984 within a period of two months from
today (extendable by another one month by
BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will
have to pay only the registration fee. They need
not pay initial deposit as their sites have been
acquired and they have agreed not to receive
compensation in regard to the sites under this
arrangement;
(c) The petitioners shall file applications for
allotment of sites by the BDA within three
months from today, in the prescribed form
stating that they are applicants who are the
petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners
shall file their documents with BDA within a
period of two months to enable BDA to verify the
same.
– 87 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
(d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled
to priority in allotment and allot each of them a
site measuring 30’x40′ in Anjanapura Layout or
in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the
prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners
satisfying the twin requirements for allotment
under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules 1984;
that they must be the (ten year domicile)
residents of Bangalore and should not be owning
any residential property in Bangalore subject to
exceptions as per Rule 10).
(e) If there are no rival claimants for
compensation in regard to the plots claimed by
petitioners, and if the ownership of the
petitioners in regard to their respective sites
which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA
shall calculate the compensation payable to the
petitioners and give credit to the same by
adjusting the same towards the allotment price
for the site to be allotted and call upon the
petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall
be given six months time for making payment
[to enable petitioners to know the amount of
– 88 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
compensation which they will be entitled and to
ascertain how much balance they should pay].
(f) If there are rival claimants in regard to
the survey numbers or the sites or if any
petitioner’s title in regard to the sites are
challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard
to the compensation in regard to such site/land
in question to the Civil Court under Section 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and the
petitioners will have to sort out the matter
before the reference Court. In that event, such
petitioners will have pay the full allotment price
within the time stipulated, without seeking
adjustment of compensation for the acquired
site;
(g) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the
requirements for allotment, under the allotment
Rules, their cases may be considered for
allotment of 20′ * 30′ sites as per the Rules
containing incentive scheme for voluntary
surrender of lands. For the purpose of the said
scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have
voluntarily surrendered the sites.
– 89 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
(h) The above scheme will be available to
only those who are owners, as a consequence of
execution of registered sale deeds in their favour
prior to the date of preliminary notification (and
not to GPA/ Agreement Holders).
All the writ petitions are disposed of
recording the above terms. The above
arrangement having been arrived at in view of
the peculiar facts of these cases, shall not be
treated as a precedent in other cases.”
26. In view of the above reasons stated supported by
the reliances extracted above, the learned Senior Counsel
Shri G.S. Kannur for the respondents / BDA as well as the
learned AGA for the State prays to outrightly dismiss the
appeals filed by the appellants herein by confirming the
orders rendered by the learned Single Judge.
27. In the context of contentions raised by the
learned counsel for both the parties, it is relevant to state
that the present cases revolve around multiple writ
– 90 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
appeals challenging the acquisition of land for the
formation of the “Further Extension of Banashankari 6th
Stage” by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The appellants have contended that the acquisition
process was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of
their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of
the Constitution of India. It is their contention that while
the preliminary notification initially proposed to acquire
1532 acres and 17 guntas, the final notification reduced
the acquisition to approximately 750 acres, allegedly
favoring influential individuals while unjustly continuing
the acquisition of the lands of the appellants herein.
Additionally, they claim that their objections were not
considered in a fair and transparent manner and that the
BDA failed to follow due process while proceeding with the
acquisition.
28. Be that as it may, it is relevant to state that as
contended by the learned counsel for the BDA, the land
– 91 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
acquisition process undertaken by the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) for the formation of the
“Further Extension of Banashankari 6th Stage” was
conducted in accordance with the provisions of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act,
1976). The acquisition was a necessary exercise in urban
planning to accommodate the growing demands for
residential and infrastructural development in Bangalore.
The BDA Act, 1976, empowers BDA to formulate
development schemes, acquire land, and implement urban
planning projects that serve the public interest. The
appellants’ contention that the acquisition was arbitrary
and discriminatory, is factually and legally unsustainable,
as the entire process was carried out in strict adherence to
statutory provisions, following a transparent, rational, and
legally sound approach.
29. It is also relevant to state that the acquisition
process was initiated by issuing a Preliminary Notification
– 92 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act on 07.11.2002, which
was published on 21.11.2002. The preliminary notification
clearly outlined the extent of land proposed for acquisition,
the survey numbers, and the names of khatedars and
anubhavadars. Notices under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act
were issued to the affected landowners and published in
leading newspapers on 17.11.2002, ensuring that all
stakeholders were informed and given an opportunity to
present their objections. The BDA conducted public
hearings between 10.02.2003 and 24.02.2003, carefully
considering the objections raised by landowners. In its
meeting held on 28.06.2003, the BDA examined these
objections and passed resolutions to approve the scheme
under Section 15(2) of the BDA Act, seek Government
sanction under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act, and delete
782 acres 17 guntas from the final notification while
imposing a betterment tax on the deleted lands. The
Government sanctioned the scheme under Section 18(3)
of the BDA Act as on 04.09.2003, which was published on
– 93 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
08.09.2003, and thereafter, the Final Notification was
issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act as on
09.09.2003.
30. A crucial aspect of this case is the deletion of
certain lands from the acquisition process, which the
appellants argue, was done arbitrarily. However, this claim
is misplaced and unfounded, as the exclusions were made
based on objective, rational considerations, including areas
that had already been converted for non-agricultural use,
extensively developed localities, nurseries, religious
institutions, and lands already acquired for other
Government projects. These deletions were necessary to
ensure practical and feasible urban planning, and they do
not vitiate the legality of the acquisition process. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lila Ram (Pt.) v.
Union of India, ((1975) 2 SCC 547)), held that the
Government has the discretion to accept some objections
and reject others based on the needs of public purpose.
– 94 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
The BDA’s approach aligns with this principle, as its
decisions were based on planning necessities rather than
favoritism or arbitrariness.
31. The betterment tax levied under Section 20 of
the BDA Act on 657 acres 15 guntas of deleted land was a
justified measure to ensure that those who benefited from
the proximity of the developed layout contributed towards
urban infrastructure improvements. The BDA had already
incurred significant expenses on land leveling, drainage
formation, and other development works, spending crores
of rupees to implement the scheme. Furthermore,
possession of 580 acres 18 guntas was lawfully handed
over to BDA’s Engineering section for layout formation,
while the remaining land was delayed due to court-
imposed stay orders. The appellants’ claim that the
acquisition lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act and
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and
– 95 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
Resettlement Act, 2013, is untenable, as possession has
already been lawfully taken and utilized for public
development. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore
Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139], has
upheld that once substantial development has
commenced, acquisition does not lapse, making the
appellants’ arguments legally unsustainable.
32. The procedural fairness of the acquisition process
is further reinforced by the compliance with Sections 15 to
19 of the BDA Act. The development scheme was prepared
in strict accordance with Sections 15 and 16, and the Final
Notification was issued after obtaining Government
sanction under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act. Though the
appellants have argued that they were denied a fair
opportunity to present their objections, but this argument
is factually incorrect, as public hearings were conducted,
their objections were considered, and necessary
– 96 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
modifications were made. The BDA Act does not mandate
personal or oral hearings beyond the consideration of
written objections, and this view is reaffirmed by a
judgment of this Court in the case of D. Hemachandra
Sagar v. State of Karnataka, (1998 SCC OnLine Kar
549) holding that, as long as a development scheme is
prepared with broad compliance to Section 16 of the BDA
Act, procedural sufficiency is maintained.
33. In addressing the concerns of site owners and
those affected by acquisition, it is necessary to state that
the BDA has followed judicial precedents to ensure that
landowners receive fair treatment, which is supported by a
judgment of this Court in the case of G.R. Jayamma and
Others vs. State and Others (WP No. 20875-
938/2001, disposed on 20.07.2001), where a broad
consensus was reached between the petitioners and the
BDA regarding site allotment. In the said case, the
petitioners therein had agreed to withdraw their objections
– 97 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
to the acquisition and, in return, were provided priority
allotment of 30’x40′ sites under the BDA (Allotment of
Sites) Rules, 1984, provided they met the necessary
eligibility criteria. They were allowed to adjust their
compensation amounts against site prices, ensuring a fair
and equitable resolution. Additionally, in cases where rival
claimants existed, disputes were referred to the Civil Court
under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
ensuring legal clarity and transparency. While this specific
arrangement was case-specific and not a precedent, it
demonstrates that the BDA has taken a fair and
accommodating approach towards landowners affected by
the acquisition process.
34. Another baseless contention raised by the
appellants is that the BDA lacks jurisdiction to acquire
lands in rural areas or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan
Area. However, the BDA Act empowers the BDA to acquire
land for urban expansion, and the State Government
– 98 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
sanctioned the acquisition, thereby ensuring jurisdictional
validity. The Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders
v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 3 SCC 1] clarified that
urban development authorities have the power to acquire
land for metropolitan planning. Hence, the appellants’
challenge on jurisdictional grounds is legally untenable and
must be dismissed.
35. The argument on behalf of the appellants that
the acquisition lacks genuine public purpose, is also
misplaced and misleading. The BDA acquired land for the
formation of a planned residential layout to accommodate
Bangalore’s expanding population, thereby fulfilling a
legitimate public purpose. The Supreme Court in the case
of Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat
[(1986) 1 SCC 581] held that urban land acquisition is a
valid exercise of state power for public welfare. The BDA’s
project aligns with this principle, as 5991 residential sites
were formed, and 4983 were allotted to eligible applicants,
– 99 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
demonstrating that the acquisition was for public benefit
and not commercial profiteering.
36. Thus, the BDA’s acquisition process was lawful,
fair, and necessary for urban planning. The statutory
process under the BDA Act, 1976, was rigorously followed,
and all procedural safeguards were adhered to. The
deletion of lands was based on rational considerations, and
the public interest in urban expansion outweighs the
individual interests of the appellants. Given that the
acquisition has already resulted in significant urban
development, any interference at this stage would cause
irreparable harm to public planning and infrastructure
development. Accordingly, we are of the view that the
BDA’s acquisition is legally sound, and the appellants’
claims requires to be dismissed in the interest of justice,
equity, and public welfare. In that view of the matter, we
proceed to pass the following:
– 100 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007ORDER
a) All these writ appeals namely,
i) W.A.No.1026/2006, ii) W.A.No.1093/2006,
iii) W.A.No.1116/2006, iv) W.A.No.1164/2006,
v) W.A.No.1167/2006, vi) W.A.No.1312/2006,
vii) W.A.No.1430/2006, viii) W.A.No.1844/2006 and
ix) W.A.No.960/2007 filed by the appellants are dismissed.
b) Consequently, i) the order dated 06.06.2006
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2066/2004,
ii) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.Nos.2057 to 2065/2004, iii) the order
dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.43126-43137/2003, iv) the order dated
06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.54766/2003, 49850/2003, 48158/2003 &
51132/2003, v) the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4147/2004, vi) the order
dated 06.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in
– 101 –
WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF
2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF
2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF
2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF
2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007
W.P.No.2057/2004, vii) the order dated 06.06.2006
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2240/2004
viii) the order dated 29.08.2006 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.50611/2003 and ix) the order
dated 14.03.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.17452/2005, are hereby upheld. As a result, the
acquisition proceedings are also upheld.
iii) All pending applications stand disposed of as a
consequence.
Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on
record its deep appreciation for the able research and
assistance rendered by its Research Assistants, namely
Mr.Pranav.K.B, Ms. Sushmithaa Roshini R and Mr. Mohammed
Sulaiman.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KS
[ad_1]
Source link