- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 2159 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI. VENKATESH S/O SRI. SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.16 50 FEET ROAD MUNESHWARA BLOCK BENGLURU-560 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA UNDER SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALUR-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-V BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KEMPEGOWDA RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. 4. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDHAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTY HEGDE .N, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 18/08/2018 AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 19/11/2020, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, AT ANNEXURE-A, DECLARE THAT, THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE DEEMED TO WITHDRAWN FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2014 IN WP NO. 10646-10649/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners, whose lands in Sy.No.146/2 measuring 3 Acres and 14 Guntas, Sy.Nos.156/1 measuring 1 Acre and 9 Guntas, and 167/1 measuring 1 Acre and 9 Guntas, have been notified for acquisition, are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned Government Order dated 18.08.2018 at Annexure-J and to quash the endorsement dated 19.11.2020 at Annexure-A and further to declare that the schedule property are deemed to have been withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings in terms of the order dated 28.04.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.10646-10649/2011 and for consequential orders. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners gave representations to the 3rd respondent- Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘SLAO’), seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands belonging - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 to the petitioners which were notified for acquisition for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.10646- 10649/2011 dated 28.04.2014. Learned Counsel submits that earlier the petitioners had filed W.P.Nos.10646- 10649/2011, seeking to quash the preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and final notification dated 18.02.2010. This Court having noticed the status report obtained at the hands of the SLAO, which had clearly stated there exists a Brick Factory in the schedule property in the name and style of ‘PBW Table Bricks’, however, it was also stated that the case of the petitioners along with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer will be examined and accordingly proposal will be sent to the Government for appropriate action. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the State Government to expedite consideration of a representation given by the petitioners for dropping of the acquisition proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on or before 31st of July 2014. A rider was also applied while disposing of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 the writ petition stating that if the State Government failed to consider the representation within the given time it shall be deemed that the lands are withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. However, there was non- compliance of the directions issued by this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however points out to Annexure-J dated 18.08.2018, which is a communication made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department to the Commissioner BDA. It should be noticed that Annexure-J, it is not a communication pertaining to the petitioners. That was a communication pertaining to Sri.Gangaiah. Further, the attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure-A which is the endorsement dated 19.11.2020 given by the 3rd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer-V, BDA to the petitioners citing the decision taken by the State Government, which again has reference to Annexure-J dated 18.08.2018. Nevertheless, it is stated in the impugned endorsement Annexure-A that the State - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 Government has rejected the request made by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-K, which is an order passed by this Court in the case of Sri.Gangaiah in W.P.No.47449/2018 dated 22nd of October 2020. This Court having noticed the earlier directions given by this Court, similar to the one issued in favour of the petitioners herein, where directions were issued by this Court to the State Government to consider the case of the writ petitioners, who claimed that they have established Brick Industries on their respective lands and therefore, they contended that the lands could not have been acquired for formation of a residential layout. This Court quashed similar impugned endorsement and the communication made by the State Government. Learned Counsel would further draw the attention of the Court to Annexure-L, which is again a similar order passed in the case of Sri.Kariyappa in W.P.No.7720/2021 dated 26th of May - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 2021. Further, in order to buttress the arguments of the petitioners that pursuant to the quashing of the endorsements issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the communication made by the State Government, Sri.Kariyappa approached the Deputy Commissioner, seeking conversion of the lands. It is pointed out that ‘No Objection Certificate’ was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA and thereafter, the lands were converted by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Annexures-N and N1, dated 19.05.2023. Learned Counsel would therefore seek similar orders as were passed in W.P.Nos.47449/2018 and 7720/2021. 5. However, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA and learned Additional Government Advocate submit that such orders as passed in W.P.Nos.474498/2018 and 7720/2021 were considered by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeals in W.A.No.1783 of 2014 and connected matters and by order dated 22nd of February 2024, the appeal filed by the Bangalore - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 Development Authority were allowed and all such orders passed by the learned Single Judge were set aside. The preliminary notification and final notification and the acquisition of the lands for formation of Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout was up held by the Division Bench. However, liberty was reserved to all such land owners/ writ petitioners, who are seeking to drop the acquisition proceedings on the ground that their lands are nursery lands; situated within green belt; totally built up; that the lands are constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions; and or that similar adjoining lands have been either left out from a acquisition or denotified were permitted to make an application to the BDA seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition by producing all such material that they deem fit/necessary in support of their applications, within 3 months from the date of the order. Directions were issued to the BDA to consider such applications keeping in mind the status of the lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and without taking into consideration any developments / improvements/ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 constructions made subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification. The BDA was directed to complete the entire exercise of considering the applications and deciding on the same within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of the order. The BDA was also directed that the decision taken shall be informed to the applicants. It was directed that if the BDA is the opinion that the acquisition will have to be proceeded with, the BDA was granted liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Learned Counsel would further submit that in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the application was required to be filed within 3 months from the date of the order, i.e., 22nd of February 2024. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioners did not have the knowledge of the directions issued by the Hon’able Division Bench, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 petitioners should be given opportunity to approach the respondent-BDA with similar applications. This Court has not been appraised as to what happened to the similar cases where it was contended that the petitioners have established Brick Industries and therefore, the lands should not be notified or acquired for formation of a residential layout. Be that as it may, the petitioners are entitled for similar relief as granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1783 of 2014. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-K stands quashed, since it is issued to the petitioners. Annexure-J is not a communication pertaining to the petitioners and therefore this Court need not say anything in respect of Annexure-J. The 3rd respondent-SLAO shall consider this writ petition itself as an application from the petitioners seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the petitioners have established a Brick - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 Industry long before the preliminary notification was issued. 8. Two weeks time is granted to the petitioners to furnish all relevant information to the 3rd respondent-SLAO pertaining to the establishment and running of the Brick Industry. Upon consideration of the request made by the petitioners and consideration of the documents that could be submitted by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent-SLAO shall prepare a report recommending dropping of the acquisition proceedings, if such a benefit has been given to similarly placed persons and forward the same to the State Government. The State Government shall consider the report that could be filed by the 3rd respondent-SLAO and thereafter take a decision having regard to the benefit given to similarly placed persons and inform the petitioners regarding the decision taken. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10937 WP No. 2159 of 2024 Ordered accordingly. 9. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79