- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 32401 OF 2017 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. MR. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. GUNNARAMMAJI, RESIDING AT NO. 42, 18TH CROSS, MALAGALUR MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091. 2. MRS. SITADEVI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O. MR. ROOPRAM, RESIDING AT NO. 42, 18TH CROSS, MALAGALUR MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091. 3. MRS. KANCHANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O. MR SURAJ, RESIDING AT NO. 115, 71ST CROSS, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 078. 4. MR. RAJARAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. KHETARAMAJI, NO.24/2, MALAGUR MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 5. MR. PHUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. KHETARAMAJI, RESIDING AT NO. 24/2, MALAGUR MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY SHANKAR RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE CHAIRMAN BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (WEST) BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.07.1982 AT ANEX-G AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.1985 AT ANNEXURE-H WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners are the purchasers of certain residential sites as explained in paragraph No.1 of the writ petition, which form part of land in Sy.No.5/4 situated at Malagala Village, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, having purchased the same in terms of deeds of sale dated 25.04.2016 produced at Annexures-A, B and C respectively. 2. It appears the aforesaid land in Sy.No.5/4 was acquired by the respondent-BDA in terms of preliminary notification 15.07.1982 followed by the final notification dated 05.08.1986 for the purpose of formation of Nagarbhavi II Stage, residential layout. 3. The case of the petitioners is that though the lands are acquired, same have not been put to use by the respondent- BDA resulting in lapsing of the scheme in terms of Section 27 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976'). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the grounds urged in the petition as well as the documents enclosed therewith vehemently submits that the respondent-BDA not having implemented the project as conceptualized within the time specified under Section 27 of the Act, 1976 has abandoned the project. He further refers to a document produced at Annexure-J, which is information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.04.2013, wherein to a query raised with regard to the status of land in Sy.No.5/4, it is responded that no layout has been formed in the said land, he also refers to an order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5507/2014, to contend that under the similar circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the petition, inasmuch as the scheme had not been substantially implemented and consequently quashed the acquisition. Hence, he submit the present petition be allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that the petition itself is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioners claim to have purchased the portions of the land acquired in terms of the deeds of sale dated 25.04.2016, that is after 30 years of the acquisition. He submits that subsequent purchasers have no locus-standi to questions the acquisition on any count whatsoever. However he submits if at all the petitioners have any right, they can seek regularization of their occupation in terms of Section 38D of the Act, 1976. If such representation is made their case would be considered in accordance with law. 6. Submissions taken on record. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be reserved to the petitioners to file necessary representation before the respondent-BDA with the direction for them to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 38D. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the land in Sy.No.5/4, situated Malagala Village, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in which the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 sites purchased by the petitioner forms part of has been acquired in terms of preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 followed by the final notification dated 05.08.1986. 10. Though, vehement submission is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the scheme has not been implemented, there is no particular averments or details provided in the petition, whether the scheme has not been implemented only in respect of this survey number or the entire area which is subject matter of the acquisition. 11. It appears that in the final notification an extent of about 604 acres of land was acquired, possession was taken, layout was formed. It is settled position of law, in order to invoke the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, 1976, there has to be a specific averment that the scheme has not been implemented, due to dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-BDA, which is not the case here. No averments or particulars in that regard are furnished. 12. In any event, the petitioners are admittedly the purchasers of the sites, after 30 years of acquisition. When the very alienation made by the land owners of the acquired land in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6716 WP No. 32401 of 2017 favour of the petitioner is itself void-ab-initio, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-BDA, they do not have locus to maintain the present petition. The petition may have to be dismissed on this count alone. 13. Notwithstanding the above, since in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent- BDA, the case of the petitioner be consider under Section 38D of the Act, 1976 and since the learned counsel for the petitioner seek liberty to file such a representation, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) Petitioners are at liberty to file the fresh representation within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in the prescribed format. ii) The respondent-BDA shall thereafter consider the said representation strictly in accordance under Section 38D of the Act, 1976. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23