- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE SANNAPPA 2. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE SANNAPPA 3. SRI MUNILAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY ALL ARE R/AT KEMPAPURA HA FARM POST BENGALURU – 560 024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING. BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW OR RECALL THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2021 PASSED IN WP NO. 51929/2014 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS DIRECTION ISSUED PARA 91(XIV) AND XX(H)(L) IN SO AS FOR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners, the then land owners of the property as described in the body of the petition, are seeking review / recall of an order passed by the learned single Judge in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 W.P.No.51929 of 2014 and connected matters, disposed on 27.09.2021 2. Heard Sri Sampath A., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Ajay Kumar M., learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners are said to be the owners of the lands in survey No.43/1 measuring 2 acres and 19 guntas, in survey No.43/2 measuring 8 acres and 25 guntas and in survey Nos.43/3 measuring 29 guntas, all situated at Dasarahalli village. The lands were the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi layout. There were two notifications. The issue in the lis concerns the second notification that was issued in the year 2014. 4. The second notification so issued by the first and second respondents – Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) in the year 2014 becomes subject matter of plethora of cases filed before this Court challenging the acquisition. One of the cases filed was in W.P.No.38055/2014, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 by the very petitioners. The learned single Judge in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021, disposed the petition along with connected matters, by issuing several directions. The directions so issued by the learned single Judge is as follows: “(a) Examine all such representations received by BDA pursuant to Division Bench order and BONDU RAMASWAMY’s judgment placed before the Committee and submit a report to the BDA as to whether such claim/s would fall within the exceptions carved out under the judgments for deleting the lands or not. The BDA shall thereafter take steps to delete or include such lands from acquisition. (b) The Committee shall also consider the representations of the land owners submitted to BDA which shall be placed before the Committee to ascertain as to whether the lands of the applicants are landlocked and/or adjacent lands having been dropped from acquisition without dropping the lands of the applicants. The Committee shall examine the claim on case to case basis and on being satisfied either such claim being genuine or being contrary to factual scenario shall prepare a report village wise and forward the same to the BDA to enable the said authority to either delete such lands from acquisition or conclude the acquisition. (c) The Committee shall either by itself or through its empowered officers carryout inspection of all 16 villages where sites have been carved in Arkavati Layout by identifying such sites in respect of which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 allotment letters, possession certificate has been issued and recommend to the BDA to handover possession of such sites to the allottees forthwith for ensuring the process of allotment is taken to its logical end by forwarding a report in that regard to the BDA expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (4) months today. On receipt of such report from the Committee, BDA shall expeditiously and not later than one (1) month from the date of receipt of such report shall execute the Lease cum Sale Agreement or absolute Sale Deed, as the case may be, by confirming possession of such sites having been handed over or delivered to the allottees. (d) The Committee shall examine as to whether the claim of land owners for deleting their lands from being acquired is within the parameters or the directions issued by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY’s case and if so, shall submit a report to the BDA to the said effect and pursuant to the same BDA shall take steps accordingly to either delete the land or proceed with allotment of the sites to the applicants that may be formed in such lands. (e) The Committee shall examine as to whether deletion of land/s from acquisition made by the BDA is within the parameters fixed by Division Bench and BONDU RAMASWAMY's case by examining every such deletion made on case to case basis and particularly with reference to deletion made on the ground of adjacent lands having been deleted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 (f) The Committee shall also examine the claim of the applicants on case to case basis for deletion of lands on the ground of area being built-up by considering or looking into the scientific evidence that may be secured by the Committee as noticed hereinabove. (g) The Committee shall examine the claim of the applicants on case to case basis for deletion of lands from acquisition on the ground of buildings having been constructed by ascertaining as to whether such buildings have come up prior to the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003 or thereafter. It is made clear that such buildings/sheds constructed with asbestos sheets or tiled roof, shall not be eligible to be considered as a pucca building for the purposes of exclusion from acquisition even if so claimed by the applicants. (h) The Committee shall examine as to whether deletion of 983.12 acres of land by the Government subsequent to the Notification dated 23.02.2004 and before issuance of Notification dated 18.06.2014 was in accordance of dicta laid down by the Division Bench and in compliance with directions/clarifications issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY’s case and submit a report to the BDA, who shall take steps based on said report. (i) The Committee shall also examine the applications of revenue site holders for allotment of sites in accordance with the extant Circular of BDA dated 09.06.2017 and Resolution dated 18.04.2017 keeping in mind the law laid down in JUNJAMMA’s case and also keeping in mind paragraph 3.2 of the memo filed before the Division Bench - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 whereunder BDA has undertaken to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' in favour of revenue site holders, whose revenue sites had been acquired, which would be in terms of the order/direction issued in W.P.Nos.20875-938/2001 dated 20.07.2021 (Anjanapura Scheme). (j) The Committee shall examine as to whether on Layout/s formed by Housing Co-operative Societies or House Building Co-operative Societies or registered Union or registered Association wherein sites have been formed and allotted to its Members wherein construction of buildings have come up by conducting spot inspection either by itself or through its empowered officers and if the Committee is of the view that it is a self contained Layout, a report to said effect shall be submitted to BDA, upon which BDA shall delete the said lands from acquisition. However, it is made clear that if BDA has taken possession of such lands and has already formed sites, allotment made, then claim of the Members of the Co-operative Society for allotment of alternate site would only be considered by the BDA and it is made clear that said benefit would be available only to the applicants or Members of the Society/Union/Association, who have purchased the property under registered sale deed from such Housing Co- operative Society or House Building Co- operative Society or Registered Union or Registered Association, as the case may be. (k) The BDA shall publish the operative portion of this order in any two (2) vernacular newspapers consecutively on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 two (2) dates within a gap of 10 days from today, so as to avoid issuance of individual notices by the Committee and it is made clear that there would be no need or necessity to issue individual notices by the Committee. (l) The Committee would at liberty to examine as to whether BDA has undertaken any exercise to delete lands suo motu and if it is so found, the exercise so undertaken by BDA would stand quashed if it is not in conformity with the order passed by the Division Bench as affirmed and clarified by the Apex Court, to which effect the Committee shall submit a report to BDA and on such report being submitted, the deleted lands would stand restored to BDA for the purposes of formation of sites in Arkavati Layout to be allotted to the applicants in waiting. (xxi) All lands which are the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Arkavati Layout if having been converted, layout formed, sites carved and constructions having been put-up prior to issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003, would be entitled for deletion from acquisition, subject to report being submitted by the Committee to the said effect. (xxii) All writ petitions which have not been specifically dealt with hereinabove is deemed to have been disposed of in terms of the above order and all pending interlocutory applications stands consigned to records. (xxiii) No order as to costs.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 In terms of direction (h) supra, the Committee was directed to be constituted to examine as to whether deletion of 983.12 acres of land by the Government subsequent to the notification dated 23.02.2004 (the first notification), and before issuance of final notification dated 18.06.2014, was in accordance with law laid down by the division bench and in compliance with the directions / clarifications issued by the Apex Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 and submit a report to the BDA and also directed the BDA to take steps on receipt of the report from the hands of the Committee. 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the Committee has now issued notice to the petitioners asking them to appear before the Committee and substantiate their claim. The notice is issued on 26.11.2024. After receipt of the notice, comes the subject petition for it having been filed on 11.02.2025. 6. Sri Sampath A., learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the direction (h) which directs the Committee to look into the deletion of 983.12 acres of land is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 an error as there was no scheme itself formed by the BDA and therefore, the Committee ought not to have been directed to look into the aspect of 983.12 acres of land qua its deletion. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners were not heard in the matter at the time, when the order was passed and they have right to seek review or recall of the order, in which the petitioners were not heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners further takes this Court through the order of the division bench to contend that the order of the learned single Judge quoted supra is in error and contrary to the law laid down by the division bench, which is by following the judgment of the Apex Court, which has affirmation by the division bench. 7. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 - BDA would submit that the submission that they were not heard in the matter is contrary to the record as the very petitioners were also the parties in W.P.No.38055/2014, which was calling in question the final notification of the year 2014 (the second final notification), which is now sought to be urged in the case at hand. He would submit that the order is passed after hearing all the parties and have been directed to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 go before the Committee and without going before the Committee, the petitioners are now wanting to re-agitate all the issues that were considered and rejected by the learned single Judge. He would further contend that the order of the learned single Judge is affirmed by the division bench and would seek dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. The notification issued i.e., second in line, by the BDA becomes the subject matter of challenge before the learned single Judge, the order of which is quoted supra. The learned single Judge has clearly held about the constitution of the Committee and has clearly laid the functions as to what the Committee should do with regard to 983.12 acres of land, which stood deleted. It is an admitted fact that the lands of the petitioners come within those 983.12 acres, which is now directed to be considered by the Committee. The Committee in furtherance of the direction of the learned single Judge has issued the notice on - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 26.11.2024, directing the petitioners to appear before the Committee on 11.12.2024 / 09.01.2025. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have appeared before the Committee on the said date. The petitioners having appeared before the Committee and notwithstanding the aforesaid factors, have presented the subject petition in the garb of review or recall of the order that is passed after hearing them. The submission is that, the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the BDA has inspected and has recommended that the lands of the petitioners should not form part of acquisition. Learned counsel would place heavy reliance upon a document dated 31.05.2012, to contend that the learn single Judge has fallen in error in directing the Committee to look into the aspect of 983.12 acres of lands. The submission of the petitioners is noted only to be rejected. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek to distinguish the submission that they had made before the learned single Judge in which they were also the parties and the submission that is now made before this Court by contending that the submissions so made qua a particular property in a particular - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20147 WP No. 4114 of 2025 survey number and not this land. The submission is again noted only to be rejected as the conduct of the petitioners is though reprehensible in approaching this Court all over again, raising a challenge to the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is now stood affirmed by the division bench, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners were all heard completely in the matter. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, there is no warrant for this Court to all over again consider the submissions of the petitioners, which have all been considered and the consideration of which has been affirmed by the division bench as well. This Court hold its hands in imposition of exemplary cost though this matter appropriately deserve. 13. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5