- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 33013 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. P.PRAMILA D/O LATE SRI.R.PARTHAP SINGH, W/O SRI T.C.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.121, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P.(WEST), BENGALURU-560020. 3. THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K.P.(WEST) BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RASHMI RAO, H.C.G.P. FOR R1; SRI.K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 6.10.2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-M ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.4.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.6.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-W, ISSUED BY THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OF THE BDA, R-3 AS THE SAID ENDORSEMENTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE BDA AS WELL AS THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [ALLOTMENT OF SITES] RULES, 1984 AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers – “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the endorsement No.Be.A.Pra/A.Bhu.Swa.A/982/2007-08 dated 6.10.2007, produced as Annexure-M; Endorsement bearing No.Be.A.Pra/A.Bhu. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 Swa.A/2014-15 (Annexure-S); and dated 30.4.2014 endorsement bearing No. Be.A.Pra/A.Bhu:Swa.A/860/2015-16 dated 17.6.2015, produced as Annexure-W, issued by the Addl. Land Acquisition Officer of the BDA, 3rd Respondent as the said endorsements are contrary to the Resolution of the BDA as well as the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ ог order or direction, directing the Respondents to allot to the Petitioner, a Site measuring 40 feet x 60 feet in Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Layout, Bengaluru or in an adjacent Layout, wherever there is a vacant site, in accordance with law.” 2. Heard Sri.Subrahmanya Bhat M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Rao, H.C.G.P. for respondent No.1 and Sri.K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 3. The facts in brief are as follows – 4. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of one Late Prathap Singh, son of Late Ram Singh and Late Laxmi Bai. Late Ram Singh is said to have purchased 1 acre 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/5. Ram Singh passes away leaving behind the wife and two sons. All the three then passaic. The subject land is said to have become subject matter of acquisition by issuance of preliminary Notification on 03.01.1977. After which on 02.08.1978 a Final Notification comes to be issued and the Award is passed on 12.09.1986. The BDA is said to have taken possession of the land on 06.10.1986. 5. The claim of the petitioner is that the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’) had resolved to give one alternative site, per acre, to those land owners who had come forward to handover, the land without any hurdle at the time of acquisition. This resolution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 of the BDA resulted in formulation of Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary surrender of land) Rules, 1989 (‘Incentive Scheme’). The representation is submitted by the petitioner in claiming that he was entitled to an alternate site under the said Incentive Scheme. The said representation has resulted in endorsements which are challenged in the subject petition. 6. Sri.Subrahmanya Bhat M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. Nos.5460/2012 and 6916/20121 dated 22.06.2012, interpreting the Incentive Scheme. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows : “2. The petitioners land bearing Sy.No.115 of Banasawadi Village, K.R Puram, Bangalore South Taluk, was acquired by the State Government for public purpose, namely, for the formation of a layout, called 'East of NGEF Layout'. In this 1 Sri Rajappa and Another vs. The Bangalore Development Authority - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 connection, preliminary notification was issued on 26.7.1984 followed by final notification dated 23.10.1986. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the said notification by filing suit in O.S.No.6095/2004 before the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The court below dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree at Annexure 'C' dated 24.2.1999 on the ground that the civil suit challenging the acquisition proceedings was not maintainable. Thereafter, petitioners made an application for allotment of a site under the Incentive Scheme. The said application was dismissed by the Bangalore Development Authority by its order at Annexure 'F' dated 4.3.2009. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.27783/2009. This Court by its order dated 15.9.2010 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. BDA has once again issued the endorsement at Annexure 'G' dated 25.3.2011. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in identical circumstances, two other land owners whose share of land in the aforesaid survey number has been acquired, were allotted sites under the Incentive Scheme. The petitioners have not been allotted the site under the Scheme. Therefore, the order at Annexure 'G' is required to be quashed. It is further contended - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 that this Court in W.P.No.3347/2000 disposed of on 8.8.2002 (between SRI THIMMARAYAPPA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS) has held that if challenge to the acquisition proceedings by the owners, will not preclude them from seeking allotment of sites under the Incentive Scheme. It is further submitted that the said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3100/2003 dated 18.7.2005 (between BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. THIMMARAYAPPA). 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has made two fold submissions. His first submission is that the Division Bench of this Court in SRI THIMMARAYAPPA's case (supra) has clearly observed that the learned Single Judge's order in Thimmarayappa's case cannot be a precedent for the cases where notice under Section 9 is issued and the land owners/occupants have resisted dispossession. In the present case also, since the petitioners have resisted the acquisition proceedings, they are not entitled for allotment of site under the Incentive Scheme. It is further contended that the Incentive Scheme has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1989. It has no retrospective operation. The land of the petitioners were acquired much earlier to the date - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 of the aforesaid Scheme. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for the allotment of the site. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in THIMMARAYAPPA's case (supra) has held that the order of the learned Single Judge in the said case can have no precedent value for the cases where the notice under Section 9 is issued and the land owners/occupants have resisted dispossession. It is also true that the Incentive Scheme has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1989. The question is whether the said Incentive Scheme is applicable for the cases where lands have been acquired earlier to the date of the coming into force of the Scheme. These questions have not been considered by the respondent. I am of the view that the respondent has to reconsider the matter. 5. In the result, the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in part. The endorsement at Annexure G dated 25.3.2011 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The respondent is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioners seeking allotment of site under the Incentive Scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 8. The learned counsel appearing for BDA, Sri K.Krishna would, however, dispute the position contending that the endorsements are issued considering the fact of applicability of the Incentive Scheme with retrospective effect for the lands that have been voluntarily surrendered prior to the coming into force of the Incentive Scheme. 9. A perusal at the endorsement would not indicate any such consideration at the hands of the BDA, in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge quoted supra. The representation of the petitioner would require a fresh consideration at the hands of the BDA, bearing in mind the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. 10. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondent – BDA to consider the representation in terms of what is held - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19779 WP No. 33013 of 2016 by the Co-ordinate Bench quoted supra and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case of the petitioner on its merit for entitlement under the Incentive Scheme. 12. The representation should merit consideration within sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the decision taken on such representation, be communicated to the petitioner. 13. With the aforesaid observations, Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57