- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.294/2022 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560020. 2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALURU 560001. REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. SMT. REKHA .H W/O K. RAMACHANDRA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H. GOVT., ADV., FOR R1 SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADV., FOR R2) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2021 PASSED BY THE HON BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.5713/2018 (LA-BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION. GRANT ANY SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.01.2025, 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and another, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.5713/2018 (LA-BDA) wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 was allowed. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the respondent No.2 was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. It was averred that she is the owner of property bearing old Sy.No.12/2B, re-numbered as Sy.No.12/2B2 measuring 29 guntas including 5 guntas of kharab land situated at Sonnenahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The appellant issued preliminary notification dated 14.12.2001 under Section 17(1) and 17(3) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to acquire - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 various extents of land including the land of the respondent No.2 for the formation of Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah Layout. The respondent No.2 filed objections stating that she is running nursery and dairy farm in the schedule property and is residing in the said property. The final notification came to be issued on 31.10.2002. The respondent No.2 submitted representations to withdraw the acquisition proceedings insofar as the land in question. The appellant No.2 passed the award. However, neither any notice of award was served nor payment was made to the respondent No.2. It was further averred that the BDA continued the acquisition only for 2¼ guntas of the land out of 29 guntas of the property of the respondent No.2 and formed the road and the acquisition has been abandoned for the remaining extent. 3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, held that the appellants have not taken the possession nor paid the compensation to the remaining - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 extent of land. It is further held that the acquisition proceedings insofar as the land of the respondent No.2 excluding the land for which award has been passed, could be said to have been abandoned and accordingly, the notifications were quashed. Being aggrieved, the BDA is in appeal. 4. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in entertaining the petition filed belatedly. It is submitted that the Additional Land Acquisition Officer (ALAO) has passed the award to the entire extent, appellants have also taken possession and formed the road in the portion of the land in question and they intend to allot the sites in the remaining land. It is further submitted that there cannot be lapsing of acquisition insofar as the land in question as the BDA has substantially implemented Sir M.Visveshwaraiah Layout, there is no negligence or lapse on the part of the Authority in implementing the scheme - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 and non-utilisation of small portion of the acquired land cannot be termed as abandonment of the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 all along was seeking for deletion of her land from the acquisition proceedings and her representations were still pending. Hence, the Authority could not pay the compensation to the remaining extent. He seeks to allow the appeal by upholding the acquisition proceedings. 5. Per contra, Sri.C.M.Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the BDA has neither taken possession nor paid any compensation to the total extent of land involved in the acquisition. It is submitted that they have paid the compensation and taken possession only to the extent of 2¼ guntas of the land of the respondent No.2 which is evident from Annexure-J, proceedings of the BDA. The said proceedings indicate that they have abandoned the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 acquisition insofar as the remaining extent of land. It is further submitted that the BDA has issued the endorsement dated 24/26.7.2004 at Annexure-M which clearly indicates that the land measuring 2¼ guntas has been acquired and remaining land measuring 26¾ guntas has not been acquired. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge, considering the material available on record, has come to the conclusion that the BDA has neither taken possession nor paid the compensation to the extent of 26¾ guntas of the land of the respondent No.2 which does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents, meticulously perused the material available on record and we have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the parties. 7. The undisputed facts are that the respondent No.2-the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing old Sy.No.12/2B, re-numbered as Sy.No.12/2B2 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 measuring 29 guntas including 5 guntas of kharab land situated at Sonnenahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The subject land came to be acquired by the BDA and the State Government vide preliminary notification dated 14.12.2001 and final notification dated 31.10.2002 for formation of Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah Layout. The respondent No.2 objected the acquisition proceedings on the ground that she is running nursery, dairy farm in the schedule property and is residing in the said property. The respondent No.2 also submitted representations to delete the land from the acquisition proceedings which are pending consideration before the BDA and the State Government and till date no decision is taken on the same. In the meanwhile, the appellant No.2-Additional Land Acquisition Officer passed the award to the entire extent involved in the acquisition proceedings. The material available on record indicates that the BDA has taken possession of the land of the respondent No.2 only to the extent of 2¼ guntas and paid the compensation to the said extent, though the award is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 passed to the entire extent of 29 guntas for the reasons best known to them. 8. The BDA records at Annexure J - file noting Nos.18 to 23 clearly indicate that the respondent No.2 has submitted an application to the BDA requesting to delete 29 guntas of the land in Sy.No.12/2B2 of Sonnenahalli Village as she is residing in the building constructed in the above land which is covered with 1 RCC, 1 ACC sheet shed, 1 borewell and garden crops. The ALAO has reported that the award has been passed. However, possession of the land has not been handed over to the Engineering Section for formation of layout and hence, layout has not been formed. The ALAO along with the Surveyor prepared the sketch and report that the BDA has utilized only 2¼ guntas of the land for formation of the road and the remaining land is covered with 1 RCC, 1 ACC sheet shed building along with garden crops and the said file was submitted for restricting the award to the extent of 2¼ guntas in Sy.No.12/2B2 of Sonnennahalli Village by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 excluding the land covered with residential building along with garden crops. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, BDA have approved the said note. The file further indicates that based on such notings, the appellant-BDA paid the compensation to the respondent No.2 only to the extent of 2¼ guntas of land. The aforesaid file notings read along with the endorsement at Annexure-M dated 24/26.07.2004 clearly indicate that the appellant-BDA intended to continue the acquisition proceedings only insofar as 2¼ guntas of the land of the respondent No.2 and decided to drop the acquisition proceedings for the remaining 26¾ guntas of the land of the respondent No.2. 9. Admittedly, the appellants have neither taken possession of the 26¾ guntas of the land in question nor paid the compensation. The decision of the BDA to restrict their acquisition only to 2¼ guntas of the land is in the year 2004. Thereafter also, the BDA has not taken any steps to pay the compensation for the remaining extent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 nor to take possession of the land from the respondent No.2. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the requests of the respondent No.2 for deletion of the acquisition is pending before the BDA and the State Government and no decision has been taken by them on such representations. The material available on record clearly demonstrates that the land measuring 26¾ guntas in Sy.No.12/2B2 of Sonnennahalli Village is not vested with the BDA in view of the admitted fact that the BDA neither paid the compensation nor took possession of the said extent of land. The action of the appellant-BDA in non-payment of the compensation amount to the respondent No.2-land loser to the extent of 26¾ guntas pursuant to the award dated 28.11.2002 amounts to abandonment of acquisition. If the appellant-BDA intended to continue with the acquisition proceedings of remaining extent of the land in question, it ought to have taken immediate steps to remit the amount in favour of the respondent No.2. Now filing the appeal after a lapse of more than 20 years to restrict the award amount to an - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 extent of 2¼ guntas of land is impermissible. The BDA being the instrumentality of the State is required to act fairly more so when it comes to the payment of compensation to the land looser whose lands have been acquired way back in the year 2001 and no compensation is paid for the remaining extent till date and on this ground also, the appeal is required to be rejected. The appellant-BDA cannot be permitted to contend that they would pay the compensation now, considering the market value of the land of the year 2001. 10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the action of the BDA amounting to abandonment of the acquisition insofar as remaining extent of the land of the respondent No.2 is correct and based on the material available on record. 11. The contention of the BDA that there is delay on the part of the respondent No.2 in approaching the Court - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 cannot be held against the land loser as the BDA itself has given up the acquisition proceedings in the year 2004 by paying compensation to the respondent No.2 to the extent of 2¼ guntas of land and no decision is taken on the representations submitted by the respondent No.2 for seeking deletion of acquisition proceedings. Hence, there is no merit in such contention. 12. Insofar as lapsing of scheme is concerned, the learned Single Judge has not declared that the entire scheme of Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Layout is lapsed. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the appellants have abandoned the acquisition proceedings in view of the admitted fact that they have neither paid the compensation nor taken possession of the remaining extent of land of the respondent No.2. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the material available on record and such finding is neither perverse nor contrary to the facts and material available on record calling for any interference in the present appeal. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3282-DB W.A. No.294/2022 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1