- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2377 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 076. 2. 2(a) SMT.PAPAMMA SINCE DEAD REP BY HER LR SHIVAKUMAR K., W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY V., R/AT 283(305) BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU. 3. V. THAYAPPA S/O VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANYA MANJUNTH.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AVINASH GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR P1; SRI. M.K. SHIVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR P2(a); SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. MARUGESH V. CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE SCHEME OF BTM 6TH STAGE LAYOUT ENVISAGED UNDER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED.06.08.1988 VIDE ANNEX-H AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED.03.11.1990 VIDE ANNEX-J SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED HAS LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ACT READ WITH SEC.24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 ORAL ORDER Petitioners claiming to be the owners of land in Sy.No.35/1, measuring 37 guntas and land in Sy.No.45/3 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at Devrachikkanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which land was notified for acquisition by the respondent-BDA by a preliminary notification dated 06.08.1988 followed by the final notification dated 03.11.1990 for the purpose of formation of 'BTM layout 4th phase' is before this Court seeking following reliefs; "a. issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ or order declaring that the scheme of BTM 6th stage Layout envisaged under the Preliminary Notification dated 06.08.1988 bearing No.BDA/ALAO/ALPR/117/87-88 vide Annexure-H and the Final Notification dated 03.11.1990 bearing No.HUD/334/MNX/90 vide Annexure-J as far as the petitioners land are concerned has lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act read with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. b. to grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 2. Case of the petitioners is that even after 25 years of the issuance of a final notification, they continued to remain in possession of their respective lands referred to above without any disturbance from the respondent-BDA. As such, the Scheme which was formulated for formation of BTM 4th phase has lapsed in view the provisions contained under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,1976 (for short BDA Act). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the averments made in the petition and documents furnished therewith submits that though the notifications were issued on 06.08.1988 and 03.11.1990 and award is stated to have been passed on 20.08.1997 no amount has been paid to petitioners. That the respondent-authorities have not furnished any details with regard to deposit of such amount before the court either. Thus, she submits that non-payment of the compensation and not taking the possession would result in the very acquisition being void, besides non-implementation of the scheme substantially would result in the scheme being lapsed. Counsel for the petitioner refers to order dated 03.01.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.37797/2011 wherein another - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 Coordinate Bench of this Court had held scheme in respect of BTM 6th stage layout having lapsed and consequently quashed the notification. Thus, referring to the same learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already held that scheme in respect of BTM 6th Stage layout having been lapsed, the similar benefit be extended to the petitioners herein as well. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 4. Sri. Murugesh V. Charatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA at the outset submits that the petitioners herein had earlier approached this Court challenging the very same notification in W.P.Nos.830/1991 and other connected matters. That coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 12.09.1996 dismissed the said writ petitions. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioners therein including the petitioners in the present petition to make application for allotment of land in their favour where their building were existing, within 2 months from the said date. The said order has attained finality as there was no challenge to the same by the petitioners. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BDA submits that the land of the petitioners forms part of the BTM 4th stage scheme. The entire acquisition in respect to the 4th stage scheme has been upheld and challenge to the same has been negated by this Court. He relies upon the order dated 13.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.11127-11128/2000, wherein the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 6 has held as under; "6. B.D.A. has filed detailed objections. It is stated that Sy. No.23 of Devarachikkanahalli Village measuring 02. Acres 09 Guntas was acquired for acquisition for formation of B.T.M. IV Stage Layout under final notification dated 3.11.1990; that an award was passed on 15.11.1993 and approved on 25.1.1994; that possession of the land was taken on 14.2.1994 and handed over to Engineering Section for formation of the layout; and that a layout has been formed with 1470 sites of which 1210 sites have already been allotted. It is stated CA sites have been formed and earmarked for several public purposes and parks have been formed. It is pointed out that apart from the large amount spent for acquisition of several lands under the said notification, BDA., has also spent Rs.900.15 Lakhs towards water supply, underground drainage and electrification and Rs.702.57 Lakhs for Roads culverts etc., They have also referred to the large number of cases filed by several persons objecting to the acquisition which had delayed completion of the Scheme. Having regard to the factual situation disclosed, learned counsel for petitioners found it very difficult to pursue the argument based on Section 27 of the BDA Act.". - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 6. Therefore, he submits the reliance placed on by the petitioners to the order passed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.37797/2011 as above which indeed pertains to the BTM 6th stage is in applicable to the present case. 7. On merits of case, learned counsel for the respondents -BDA furnishers a list providing details of utilization of the land. In that land in Sy.No.35/1 has been used for formation of a road. He also refers to another order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ANNAIAH REDDY AND OTHERS vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHER dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.No.23318/2016 wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties therein disposed of the writ petition declining to accept the ground of lapsing of acquisition, however reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to seek and avail such remedy as may be available to them. Thus, based on the above, counsel for the respondent-BDA seeks for dismissal of the petition. 8. Heard and perused the records. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 9. There is no dispute of the fact that the land belong to petitioners were notified as per the preliminary notification dated 06.08.1988 and final notification dated 03.11.1990 and the award dated 20.08.1997 had been passed. As seen in the final notification the total extent of land acquired is 241.06 acres which has been utilised for formation of sites. Petitioners herein had approached this Court on earlier occasion challenging the notification in W.P.Nos.830/1991 and other connected matters which resulted in dismissal. The present petition is on the ground of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act based on the order dated 03.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.37794/2011 which admittedly pertains to BTM 6th stage layout and the present petition concerns BTM 4th stage layout. 10. In the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.11127-11128/2000 and the subsequent orders passed in respect of very same notification pertaining to scheme formulated for BTM 4th stage layout having been dismissed, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the matter. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7452 WP No. 2377 of 2015 11. Petition lacks merit. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 12. Notwithstanding the dismissal of petition, petitioners are at liberty to seek such other remedy for the purpose of seeking compensation if not received already. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1