- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14158 WP No. 6131 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6131 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI C MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE D.N. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY NILAYA, SULIBELE ROAD, NEAR PHARMACY COLLEGE, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, HOLLA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560 001. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14158 WP No. 6131 of 2025 KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. VINAYAKA S PANDIT., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION (2 NOS) BOTH DTD 8.11.2013 ANNX-G AND G1 AND REPRESENTATION 23.12.2024 ANNX-K SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-State through the Urban Development Department nor the Bengaluru Development Authority have considered the representations given by the petitioner pursuant to directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.47910/2011 dated 28.10.2013. The petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent/BDA and the State to consider the dropping of acquisition proceedings in respect of the unutilized lands. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14158 WP No. 6131 of 2025 Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of on 28.10.2013 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the State Government with reference to the circumstances where a portion of the land that was acquired has not been utilized for purposes for which it was acquired. The State was directed to consider the representation in accordance with law notwithstanding the fact that it would be the privilege of the State Government to utilize such portion of the land for any other public purpose. Consequently, the petitioner gave a representation to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department on 08.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation to the Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority on 27.11.2019 and further, a representation has been given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23.12.2024. But no action has been taken by any of the authorities including the State. 2. Having regard to the facts stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-State is duty bound to consider the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14158 WP No. 6131 of 2025 representations given by the petitioner. If a part of the land which was notified for formation of peripheral ring road has not been utilized and peripheral ring road has been formed, then the State is required to consider the representation given by the petitioner for dropping the proceedings in respect of the unutilized lands. At the same time, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is also required to forward a recommendation after verifying the facts physically. If it is found that only a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.28/1 of Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk has been utilized for the purpose of formation of the peripheral ring road, then the Special Land Acquisition Officer through the Bengaluru Development Authority shall forward a recommendation giving the factual information either for dropping the acquisition proceedings or for seeking permission of the State Government to utilize the lands for any other public purpose as was directed by this Court earlier. The State Government is thereafter required to consider the recommendation and take a decision and inform the petitioner about the decision taken. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14158 WP No. 6131 of 2025 3. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE NR/-