IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.213/2022 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD Digitally signed by KUMARA PARK WEST ARSHIFA BAHAR BANGALORE-560 001.

KHANAM …APPELLANT Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.,)

KARNATAKA AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560 001.

2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.

3. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

R2 & R3 ARE R/AT VADDARAPALYA KUTHNUR VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 083.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 R2 & R3 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS H/S V.C.O.DTD:18.12.2025)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.991-992/2013 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A.

PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant-

Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.991-992/2013 (LA-BDA).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a writ petition seeking to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant not to enforce the scheme called "Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 8^th Stage" as against the petitioners land bearing Sy.No.31/8 measuring 2 acre of Kuthnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobil, Bangalore South Taluk, declaring that the acquisition has lapsed. The appellant filed objections to said petition contending that the acquisition proceedings is concluded by passing the award, taking possession of the land in question and the compensation amount is also deposited. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order allowed the writ petition by declaring that the scheme has lapsed insofar the petitioners' land is concerned on the ground that there is enormous delay in drawing the mahazar and passing of the award from the date of final notification. Being aggrieved, the BDA is in appeal along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 2162 days in filing the appeal.

3. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BDA submits that the appeal is filed along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 2162 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to the administrative and procedural reasons within the BDA. It is further submitted that the writ petition was allowed on 01.03.2014 and the advocate appearing for the BDA did not inform the BDA about the disposal of the matter and when the law section sought the update of the case from the advocate, it is noticed that the writ petition was allowed and immediately instructions were issued to prefer an appeal, hence, there is delay. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional and for the bonafide reasons as stated in the affidavit. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings were completed by taking possession and passing of the award; the learned Single Judge has erred in declaring that the acquisition is lapsed insofar as petitioners land is concerned. It is further contended that there cannot be a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority, Act, 1976 (for short, 'Act'). The laps