Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22416
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI B S SURESH, SRI. KARTHIKA KUMAR, SMT. NAGARATNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA, M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 20563 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VARUN JOSHI
For the Respondents: SMT.RASHMI M.RAO, SRI.VASANTH
The court emphasized the necessity for due process in land acquisition and the need for authorities to act within statutory timelines while protecting property owners' rights.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Land Acquisition - Petitioners sought to declare acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976 - Petition corresponds with previous judgments on similar issues - Court reserved liberty for petitioners to file applications seeking remedies under laid laws. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Administrative law - Jurisdiction of High Court in overseeing compliance with statutory obligations - Court emphasized on timely decision from the authority post-representation and restrained any adverse actions against petitioners until such decisions are made. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their properties, stating it lapsed under the BDA Act and sought to direct the BDA to consider their representations for prioritization under allotment rules and prohibition on interference in ownership.
Findings of Court:
The writ petition was disposed with directions to the BDA for timely consideration of representations and interim protection for the petitioners' interests until decisions on representations are made.
Issues: The main issues included the status of acquisition proceedings and ensuring the rights of the petitioners are preserved while due process is followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with legal procedures regarding land acquisition is paramount, and entities involved must act judiciously and in phases to ensure rights under the law are upheld while preventing undue pressure on property owners.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging acquisition proceedings and rights of petitioners. (Para 2) |
| 2. advocates presented prior case law supporting petitioners' claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court mandated decision-making by authorities. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition results and orders issued. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondents to consider the Representations submitted by the Petitioners to the Respondent No.2 dated 10.06.2025 at ANNEXURE-A.
or in the alternative:
b. Declare that the entire Acquisition Proceedings in respect of the Schedule 'B' Properties is abandoned/lapsed in view Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976 with respect to the Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 bearing No.BDA/COMMR/Deputy Commissioner(LA)/ ALAO/158/2008-09 issued by the Respondent No.2 the Final Notificaiton dated 18.02.2010 bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010, gazette dated 18.02.2010 atANNEXURE-E & F issued by respondent No.1.
c. Issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondents or their agents, servants, henchmen or any one claiming under them or acting under them, from interfering with the ownership and possession of the Petitioners over Schedule Property;
d. Grant such other reliefs in the interest of Justice and Equity."
2. Heard Sri Varun Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Rashmi M.Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vasanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an identical prayer is considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.NO.30147/2024, disposed on 21.01.2023 wherein certain directions are issued. The order reads as follows:
"3. Sri. Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA refers to the judgment and order dated 22.02.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and other connected matters, wherein the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph Nos. b) and c) of the operative portion of the order has issued the following directions:
''b) Insofar as the site owners who have not made an application as contemplated in para (iii)(a) hereinabove:
i) They shall register themselves for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months from today by paying the registration fee. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. The necessary documents along with the said applications are also to be filed to enable the BDA to verify the same;
ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as being entitled for priority allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30x40 feet in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the prevailing allotment prices subject to the applicants satisfying the dual requirements of allotment under the Rules that they must be the residents of Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be owning any residential property Bengaluru;
iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements for allotment under the Rules, 1984 they may be considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989; c) Insofar as the owners of residential sites who form part of a layout and who have sought for dropping their lands from acquisition in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the BDA shall consider the same having regard to the observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the BDA rejects their applications, the site owners who have first filed applications pursuant to para (iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further period of one month after the decision as contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and apply in the manner as contemplated in para (iii)(b)
hereinabove.''
4. Sri. Vigneshwara. U, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the same. He however
