- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 916 OF 2021 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KAMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KAMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUIDLING VIDHANA VEEDHI DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. RAJENDRA S/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 R/O. No.118 DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADASA ROAD VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 3. SRI. CHIKKA HULLURAPPA S/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O. No.117, DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADASA ROAD VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 SINCE DEAD, REP. BY 3(a). KEMPAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAHULLURAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O No.117, 1ST CROSS ROAD KANAKADASA ROAD DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 4. SMT. PARVATHI W/O LATE JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O No.118, DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADASA ROAD VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 5. SRI. M. SHANKAR S/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O No.119, DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADASA ROAD VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 5(a). R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 SINCE DEAD, REP. BY MRS. RADHA C. W/O LATE M. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. No. , VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADAS ROAD BENGALURU-560 034 6. SMT. KANAKAMMA D/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O No.118, DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADASA ROAD VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 7. SMT. SUGUNAMMA D/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O. No.118 DODDAHULLURAPPA LAYOUT KANAKADASA ROAD VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3(a), R4, R5(a), R6 & R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.4921-4926/2014 DATED 24.02.2014 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSION THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal filed with delay of 2182 days in filing the same. 3. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application filed for condonation of delay. It is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dated 24.02.2024 and that the certified copy was received on 05.03.2014. Thereafter, reasons are stated at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 for not having filed the appeal in time. It is submitted that the Commissioner, BDA- appellant No.1 had instructed the Law Officer of the BDA to look into - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 cases like the present one by a communication dated 14.07.2021 and on the basis of the said directions, the appeal was filed on 07.08.2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after the writ petition had been allowed, an IT park has been put up in the property and that the property has been put to complete use. It is further contended that the merits of the matter also cannot be gone into in an appeal, which is filed after such an inordinately long delay. 5. The learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court; • H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah, reported in (2025) SC OnLine SC 54 • Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sreedevi & Ors., reported in (2021) 18 SCC 384 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 • Basawaraj & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 • Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Naveen Builders & Ors; by order dated 05.01.2024 passed in W.A.No.912/2021. • Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Rukkamma & Ors; by order dated 19.01.2021 passed in W.A.No.601/2020. • The Commissioner BDA Vs. B.A. Rajakumari Anand & Anr; by order dated 11.01.2021 passed in W.A.No.35/2020. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are legal questions, which require consideration which are raised in the appeal and therefore, the delay requires to be condoned. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that in the present case, there is an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4464-DB WA No. 916 of 2021 inordinate delay of 2182 days and the appellants have not been able to explain the delay satisfactorily. It would not be a fit case to condone the delay and to consider the appeal on its merits. 8. In the above view of the matter, the delay condonation application is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, same is dismissed. The appeal shall also consequently, stand dismissed. However, we make it clear that the appeal is dismissed on account of delay alone and all the questions of law raised therein are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30