- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 14587 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 3090 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) IN WP No. 14587/2024 BETWEEN: SRI A SATHYANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGLAURU-560077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 KUMARAPARK, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. H.R. NARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. RAJESHWARA., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNDATED RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 43/24 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-E. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS DTD. 25.03.2022 OF HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVNARAYANA COMMITTEE VIDE ANNX-C AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS WHILE DE-NOTIFYING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. IN WP NO. 3090/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI VISHWANATHA REDDY S G AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O GOPALA REDDY S V RETIRED PRINCIPAL, R/A 2, 8TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, NEAR CRYSTAL APARTMENT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560076. 2. SRI. G. SURYA PRABHU, S/O R. GNANASURYAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 R/A NO. 108, FLAT NO. 401, GOLDEN BLOSSOM APARTMENTS, ROYAL ORCHID HOTEL ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU- 560071 3. SRI. DR. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE KALAIH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A NO.39, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, H BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSURU 570022 4. SRI. B.S. UDAY SHANKAR S/O LATE B.M.SHANKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A T-3, SLC EUPHORIA, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, LOTTE GOLLAHALLI, BENGALURU-560094 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.R. NARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 428, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE- 560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HEAD OFFICE, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ACQUISITION), BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY II BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 7. THE ENGINEER MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560020. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED BY JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA COMMITTEE IN KNKC NO.02/2022 (RELATING TO W.P.NO.33137/2015) AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No.14587/2024, is seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the undated resolution bearing No.43/24 passed by the Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E and b) Consequently, direct the Respondents to accept the recommendations dated 25.03.2022 of Hon’ble Sri.Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee vide Annexure-C and pass necessary orders de- notifying the schedule property. c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity. AND The petitioners in W.P.No.3090/2025, are seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the recommendation dated 25.03.2022 passed by Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee in KNKC No.02/2022 (relating to W.P.No.33137/2015) at Annexure-A, consequently, ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to execute a registered absolute sale deed in respect of site No.167 situated at 6th Block Sy.No.97/1, Arkavathi Layout, Thanisandra village, K.R.Puram Hobli, in favour of the 1st Petitioner, within a time frame to be stipulate by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondents to modify the preliminary - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 notification dated 25.04.2019 with respect to serial No.63 as hereunder: Extent : 1 Acre East by : Site Nos.158 to 183, formed in 1 Acre 36 Guntas of Sy.No.97/1, West by : Sy.No.100/2 North by : Sy.No.96 South by : Sy.No.95/2 iv) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.No.14587/2024, the land owner, shall be referred to as ‘petitioner’. 3. It is not disputed that preliminary notifications under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, was issued on 03.02.2003, for acquisition of 3339 Acres and 12 Guntas of land for the formation of Arkavathi Layout. A modified preliminary notification was issued proposing to acquire 3839 Acres and 12 Guntas spreading around 16 villages. However, the final notification under Section 19(1) of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 Act was issued on 23.02.2004 in respect of 2750 Acres of land, including 2 Acres and 36 Guntas of land situated at Thanisandra village, wherein 1 Acre of land belongs to the petitioner’s uncle-Sri.Narayanappa, while remaining 1 Acre and 36 Guntas belongs to the petitioner. Several land owners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.Nos.2660-04/2004 and connected matters. This Court struck down the entire acquisition proceedings and the decision is reported in the case of Smt.Sharadamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in ILR 2005 Kar 3701. The decision in the case of Smt.Sharadamma and Others were challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected matters. The Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, however directions were also issued to the respondents to consider the representations given by the land owners, who were seeking deletion or dropping of the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. Some of the land owners including the petitioner herein questioned the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the SLPs affirming the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench, with further directions and clarifications. The said decision is reported as Bondu Ramaswamy and Others Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and Others, in (2010) 7 SCC 129. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits while drawing the attention of this Court to judgment in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy, where it was directed as regards Venkateshapura, Nagawara, Hennuru and Challakere, where several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, that the BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for formation of self contained layouts. It was held that the acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 playground in regard to a layout formed in different unconnected lands in other villages. It was also directed that under similar circumstances, where similar isolated pockets of acquisition were made in other villages, they too should be dealt with in a similar manner. 5. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent-BDA and its Board resolved to delete 983.33 Guntas of land and issued a second modified final notification on 18.06.2014. It is pointed out that under the said final notification dated 18.06.2014, 1 Acre of land belonging to the petitioner’s uncle was left out of the acquisition proceedings while 1 Acre and 26 Guntas belonging to the petitioner were continued for acquisition. The writ petitioner therefore approached this Court in W.P.No.33137/2015, raising a challenge to the subsequent final notification dated 18.06.2014. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters which includes the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, rejected the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 challenge raised to the second modified final notification dated 18.06.2014, however, learned Single Judge proceeded to appoint a Three Men Committee headed by Hon’ble Shri. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana to look into various aspects as indicated in the order to implement the order passed in W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected matters dated 25.11.2005 in the case of The Commissioner, BDA and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy. In addition, it was also directed that the committee shall examine all such representations received by the BDA pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court and to submit a report to the BDA as to whether such claims would fall within the exception carved out under the judgments for deleting the lands or not. It was further directed that the BDA shall thereafter take steps to delete or to include such lands from acquisition. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 6. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the committee constituted by this Court and the committee while considering the case of the petitioner in proceedings bearing KNKC No.02/2022(TS), found that the property in question falls under the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench and accordingly, recommended for deletion of the property in question from the acquisition proceedings. However, the committee also directed that an extent of 1719.89 sq. mtrs., which were made use for the purpose of road shall be excluded and shall be maintained as road. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite such a recommendation by the committee, the Board of the BDA passed the impugned resolution having subject No.43 of 2024 to proceed with the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question. The petitioner is therefore seeking to quash the resolution bearing subject No.43 of 2024 dated ‘Nil’ at Annexure-E and the petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the recommendation of Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana committee and drop - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question. 7. During the course of these proceedings, the respondent-State Government accepted the resolution passed by the Board of the BDA and therefore, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1/2025, seeking to amend the writ petition and raise a challenge to the communication dated 15.03.2025 bearing No.N.A.E 153 Ben.Bhu.Swa 2024 issued by the respondent-State Government accepting the resolution passed by the Board of BDA. This Court had directed that the said I.A., will be heard along with the main matter. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board of the BDA and State Government have failed to assign cogent reasons for not accepting the recommendations of Hon’ble Sri. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee. It was pointed out from the recommendations made by the committee, insofar as the lands in question are concerned, that the committee - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 noticed the map prepared by the BDA and the village map and found that the land lying to the south of the land of the petitioner i.e., Sy.No.97/2 (wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.95/2 in the acquisition notification) though notified in the final notification of 2004, however, it was deleted from the acquisition in the modified final notification. It was noticed that the lands on the northern side of the land in question, which is Sy.No.96, only 35 Guntas located on the eastern side of the said land abutting to K.Narayanapura village boundary was notified for acquisition. It was found that the major extent measuring 3 Acres and 30 Guntas of land in Sy.No.96 abutting the lands in acquisition on the northern side was not notified. Similarly, in Sy.No.97/5 situated to the east of the lands in question, the said land was not notified for acquisition. Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 lying to the west of the lands in question though notified initially, but subsequently in the modified lands were deleted from the acquisition. It was noticed that Sy.No.97/4, 97/5, 98, 103, 104, which were situated close to the lands in question have not been - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 notified for acquisition. It was therefore found that it is clear that all the lands surrounding lands in question on all four sides were either not notified for acquisition or has been deleted from the acquisition proceedings subsequently. It was also noticed that the lands belonging to the petitioner’s uncle in the same survey number, to an extent of 1 Acre of land have been deleted from the proceedings in the modified final notification dated 18.06.2014. 9. The committee therefore concluded that no specific reason is forthcoming from the BDA or the reports filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for not deleting the lands in question when a portion of the very same land was dropped from the acquisition proceedings. It was concluded that there is nothing to indicate that the land in question is not similar to the adjacent lands which were dropped from the acquisition. The committee also took note of the representations given by Sri.M.Madhangopal, Sri. G.Suryaprabhu, Sri.B.S.Udaya - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 Shankar and Dr.Chikkanna, who claimed that lands in question have been fully developed by the BDA and 26 sites bearing numbers from 158 to 183 have been formed and allotted to the applicants and thereafter, the BDA had executed sale deeds in their favour in respect of the allotted sites. Pursuant thereto, the committee resolved to conduct a spot inspection and accordingly with prior notice to the applicants and the BDA, a spot inspection was conducted on 17.02.2022. On inspection, the committee noticed that no development activities were carried out in the lands in question and it was found as a vacant land surrounded on all sides by lands which are either not notified for acquisition or the lands deleted from the acquisition. It was noticed that a kachcha road was formed on the property in question with no other essential facilities. It was noticed that even storm water drain was not laid in the land on either side of the kachcha road. It was noticed that though a part of the land was dug up on one side of the kachcha road, in the adjoining lands pipes and big concrete pipes had been stocked, but no such - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 development activities were found on the land in question. It was noticed that the BDA had merely made some markings and nothing else. No acceptable material was placed before the committee to show that the possession of the land in question was taken over and any development activities were carried out on the land in question. 10. The committee, having perused the documents on record found that the petitioner herein had given a representation on 17.12.2005 to exclude/delete the land in question from the acquisition proceedings. The said representation was not considered and after the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the judgment in Bondu Ramaswamy, an endorsement dated 07.08.2013 was issued to the petitioner rejecting his representation. The committee noticed that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.19173/2014 challenging the endorsement and this Court had passed an interim order, directing the BDA to maintain status-quo and thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of on - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 08.07.2014 directing the BDA to reconsider the representation afresh in the light of the judgment in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and it was further directed that until the representation is considered and disposed of, the status-quo in all respects shall be continued in respect of the land in question. 11. On 31.07.2015 the BDA issued an endorsement rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.No.33137/2015 which came to be disposed of on 27.09.2021. The Committee therefore held that the BDA could neither claim to have taken possession of the land and formed the layout nor could the BDA allot the sites. Recording the said reasons, the Committee decided to reject the representations given by the four persons who have also filed an impleading application in this writ petition. 12. The impleading applicants have also filed W.P.No.3090/2025, seeking to quash the recommendation made by Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 in respect of the land in question. One of the petitioners is also seeking a direction to the respondent-BDA to execute the absolute sale deed in respect of Site No.167 said to have been formed on the land in question. It is also prayed in W.P.No.3090/2025 that a writ of mandamus should be issued to the respondents to modify the boundaries shown in Sl.No.63 in the preliminary notification dated 25.04.2019. 13. Weighing all the facts and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent-BDA, the Committee recommended to exclude the land in question from acquisition proceedings, while retaining the area required for road access as a link road measuring about 1719.89 sq. mtrs. 14. During the course of these proceedings, this Court had directed the respondent-State to place on record any material, which was taken into consideration by the State Government to accept the resolution passed by the Bangalore Development Authority. Pursuant to the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 same, the learned HCGP had filed a memo on 17.03.2025 enclosing copy of a communication dated 15.03.2025 made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department to the learned Government Advocate. This Court finds that in the communication dated 15.03.2025 the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, has only culled out the recommendation or the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority and for the same reasons, the State Government has accepted the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority. 15. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gurudas S.Kannur, appearing on behalf of the respondent-BDA submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the Committee was that it shall also 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 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 accordance with the dicta laid down by the Division Bench and whether it was in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the Committee was required to examine the entire aspect of the matter holistically and not on case to case basis. 16. Learned Senior Counsel contended that if the Committee were to examine the case of every individual land owner, it could find that the neighbouring lands were dropped from acquisition proceedings for a particular reason and therefore, the particular land also should be deleted from acquisition proceedings because it had a common factor. On the other hand, the directions issued by the Division Bench and the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case was to ensure that if the State Government had wrongly dropped the acquisition proceedings, the said benefit cannot be given to the neighbouring land in question, on the other hand, the dropping of the acquisition proceedings earlier should be - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 held as illegal and therefore, the direction was to restore such lands for acquisition in order to maintain a contiguity of the layout at the hands of the BDA. 17. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel for the impleading applicants. 18. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it is very clear that the Committee has taken into consideration all relevant aspects before recommending the deletion of the lands in question from acquisition proceedings, since all the neighbouring lands surrounding the land in question were either not notified or were deleted from acquisition proceedings subsequently. 19. Most importantly, it is noticeable that 1 acre of land in the same survey number belonging to the petitioner were dropped from the acquisition proceedings in the year 2014 and it is not understandable as to how the other extent of 1 acre 36 guntas did not deserve the same treatment at the hands of the BDA and the State - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 Government. The Committee which has inspected the land in question found that, except a kacha road, nothing else is formed on the land in question. Even otherwise, learned Counsel for the petitioner clearly made a statement that the petitioner is giving up his claim for compensation in respect of the road which is formed on the land in question measuring 1719.89 sq. mtrs. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsels for the impleading applicants/allottees that sites have been formed and absolute sale deeds have been executed in favour of some of the allottees and therefore, the lands cannot be dropped from acquisition proceedings, is a contention which cannot be countenanced. As rightly found by the Committee, the petitioner had given a representation as far back as 2005 seeking dropping of acquisition proceedings on the same ground on which his Uncle had also sought for dropping of the acquisition proceedings. It is strange that the Bangalore Development Authority and the State Government thought it fit to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 of 1 acre of land in question, while continuing the acquisition proceedings in respect of the remaining 1 acre 36 guntas of land, when it was clear that 1 acre and 36 guntas will form an island surrounded by unacquired lands. The land in question clearly falls within the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy, where it was directed that similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner. The Apex Court had clearly rejected the contention of the BDA and the State Government that such small islands could be used as stand alone park or playground with regard to the layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. 20. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the Committee of Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana had considered all the relevant material before recommending to the BDA to drop the lands in question from acquisition proceedings. However, the BDA did not accept the recommendation and on the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 other hand, the Board of the BDA is of the opinion that though the land in question may form an island of a layout, nevertheless, the lands in question are very much necessary, since a road has been formed on the land in question connecting to the layouts formed in Sy.Nos.94/6, 94/7, 94/8, 94/9, 95/3 and 96 of Thanisandra Village, which measures about 8 acres 29 guntas. The Committee has rightly found that the said lands are nowhere in the vicinity of the lands in question and it cannot be accepted that, the lands in question are necessary for maintaining the contiguity of the layout. Factually, the Committee has found that all the lands surrounding the land in question are either not acquired or dropped from acquisition proceedings later. The petitioner has also placed on record his undertaking that the BDA may continue to have the road for linking the other layouts formed by the BDA and that the petitioner has voluntarily given up all claims in respect of the said extent of land measuring 1719.89 sq. mtrs., which forms part of the road, formed on the land in question. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 21. The impleading applicants who have been allotted sites said to have been formed in the land in question are entitled for allotment of alternative sites at the hands of the BDA. Such directions were also issued by this Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 dated 27.09.2021 while directing the BDA to consider the claim of all such allottees for allotment of alternative sites. 22. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (1) W.P.No.14587/2024 is allowed. (2) The impugned undated resolution bearing No.43/2024 passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority at Annexure ‘E’ insofar as the lands in question i.e., 1 acre 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.97/1 of Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram Bangalore East Taluk, are - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 concerned is hereby quashed and set aside. (3) The interlocutory application in I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed, permitting amendment to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall carry out the amendment, forthwith. (4) Consequently, the communication dated 15.03.2025 bearing No. N.A.E 153 Ben.Bhu.Swa 2024 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, is also quashed and set aside. (5) The recommendation of Hon’ble Sri.Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee at Annexure ‘C’ dated 25.03.2022 insofar as the lands in question are concerned are accepted. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question are - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17159 WP No. 14587 of 2024 C/W WP No. 3090 of 2025 accordingly dropped from acquisition proceedings. (6) The impleading applicants/allottees and petitioner in W.P.No.3090/2025 may be allotted alternative sites by the BDA. 23. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, connected W.P.No.3090/2025 also stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL/JT CT: JL