IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No. 391/2019 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. MADDURAMMA

W/O. LATE PUTTAIAH

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

2.

SRI. KRISHNAPPA

S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

3.

SMT. CHANDRAKALA

D/O. LATE PUTTAIAH

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT

NO.482, BALAGERE

MAIN ROAD, VARTHUR

VARTHUR HOBLI

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

BENGALURU-560 087.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR .S., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.))

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001.

2

2.

THE COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

KUMAR PARK WEST

BENGALURU-560 020.

3.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

KUMARA PARK WEST

BENGALURU-560 020.

... RESPONDENTS

*****

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE

ORDER/JUDGMENT

DATED

09/01/2019

PASSED

IN

W.P.Nos.42771-42773/2016

(LA-BDA),

BY

THE

LEARNED

SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR J., DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in W.P.Nos.42771-42773/2016 (LA-

BDA) have preferred this intra-court appeal assailing the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2019. By

the said order, the writ petition filed by the petitioners-

appellants herein has been dismissed.

2.

Brief facts of the appeal are that one Puttaiah,

husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2

and 3, was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring

3

0.38

guntas

situated

at

Dodda-Kallasandra

village,

Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Out of 0.38

guntas, approximately 0.19 guntas of land was re-granted

and

the

name

of

Puttaiah

was

mutated

vide

M.R.No.9/1983-84. Puttaiah has two wives. The first wife

Smt. Karagamma had two daughters. After the death of

his first wife, Puttaiah married appellant No.1; and

appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are children from the second

marriage. It is stated that Puttaiah died on 10.01.1988. It

is stated that the appellant and the two daughters of the

first wife are residing jointly in the above stated property.

3.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein initiated

acquisition

proceedings

by

issuance

of

Preliminary

Notification dated 29.12.1988 under Sub-sections (1) and

(3) of Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority

Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for the sake of

brevity) and Final Notification dated 09.05.1994 under

Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. The writ petition

was filed on the ground that the scheme in question was

4

not implemented within the statutory period, hence, it is

lapsed. Therefore, they prayed the lands to be reverted to

the appellants.

4.

It is the case of the appellants that since the

scheme has lapsed, formation of sites on the land is illegal

and more particularly the allotment of site in favour of

Smt. Bhavya, respondent No.4 by respondent Nos. 2 and 3

is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Therefore, the appellants have preferred writ petition

before the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed

by assigning reasons that in earlier writ petitions filed by

other land owners, it was held that, only insofar as writ

petitioner’s land is concerned, the acquisition proceedings

had been quashed and entire scheme had not lapsed.

Furthermore, the learned Single Judge observed that the

first wife of the original khatedar Puttaiah, from whom the

lands were acquired, had challenged the acquisition

proceedings but was unsuccessful both in writ