IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.40515 OF 2011(LA - BDA)

BETWEEN:

MRS.SHOBHA W/O LATE D.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1240, 32^ND ‘G’ CROSS, IV ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU – 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LA)

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU – 560 020.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1;

SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.HUD 444 MNX 86 DATED 28.11.1986 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 25.12.1986 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY THE R1, IS INCAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HOSUR ROAD SARJAPUR ROAD SCHEME HAS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED & CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE AWARD BEARING NO.BDA/DC(LA)/AWARD/G1/3917/2005-06 DATED 6.12.2005 APPROVED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-W AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question Final Notification dated 28-11-1986 notified for acquisition of lands for formation of ‘Hosur Road and Sarjapura Road Layout’ (‘HSR’ layout for short) on the score that the scheme has lapsed.

2. Heard Sri C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

3.1. On 08-06-1974 through two registered sale deeds, the petitioner purchases schedule lands. Pursuant to the said purchase, the revenue records, mutation entries and all other statutory entries showed the name of the petitioner. During subsistence of ownership of the petitioner, the respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) issues preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short) for formation of HSR Layout on 15-12-1984. Pursuant to the preliminary notification, the petitioner is said to have filed her objections thereto on 25-03-1985. On 13-11-1986 the Scheme under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act is approved by the Government for formation of entire stretch along with Hosur National Highway. After approval of the Scheme, a final notification comes to be issued under Section 19 of the Act, on 28-11-1986. The averment in the petition is that the name of the petitioner is not shown in the preliminary notification and the final notification. Notice is issued to the petitioner under Sections 11 and 14 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’ for short) despite her name not being included in the final notification. The petitioner was directed to appear in person with reference to her claim.

3.2. The petitioner then files her objections to the said public notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act, requesting to drop her land from acquisition proceedings, since her land was fully developed. The BDA does not heed to the said objections, but goes on to proceed further with the acquisition. The petitioner then files another objection contending that she has already constructed a Kalyana Mantapa in her land and, therefore, the land should be dropped from acquisition. The petitioner also submits another representation on 15-06-1988, pursuant to which, a joint inspection is conducted on the land of the petitioner, wherein it is found that various structures have come up including