- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14240 OF 2023 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B M PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O LATE B T MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. SMT SONY PRASANNA, W/O B. M. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.24, DRUVA NILAYA, 17TH I CROSS, VINAYAKNAGARA, J P NAGAR 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGAURU - 560 001. 2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. VANDANA SAI NIVAS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076, REP BY VANDANA INFRA BUILDING PVT. LTD., (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) NO.35, 5TH A CROSS ROAD, AGARA VILLAGE, 1ST SECTOR, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034, BY ITS PROPRITOR MR. SUDHAKAR NAIDU, AGED MAJOR. 4. ROYAL GREEN APARTMENTS, BY GREEN VALLEY BUILDERS PVT. LMT., (REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) HAVING OFFICE AT NO.82, 30TH CROSS ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK EAST, K V LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 065, BY ITS PROPRITOR MR. SHAFEE, AGED MAJOR. 5. SRI B H MAHALINGAPPA, S/O HUCHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O 1ST MAIN, P P LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, KATARIGUPPE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K KRISHNA., ADV FOR R2; V/O DATED 12.02.2025 R3 TO R5 ARE DELETED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BDA IN MADIVALA LAYOUT (BTM LAYOUT 6TH STAGE) BEARING NO HUD/231/MNX/90 DATED 28/07/1990 AS PER ANNEXURE-F IS LAPSED AND SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY NO 15 MEASURING 2 ACRES 3 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU CONCERNED. CONSEQUENTLY KINDLY HOLD AND DECLARE THAT THE FINAL NOTIFICATION - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 BEARING NO HUD/231/MNX/90 DATED 28/07/1990 AS PER ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE R1 AUTHORITY SO FAR AS THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED IN SY NO 15 SITUATED AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU MEASURING 2 ACRES 3 GUNTAS CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner No.1 is husband of petitioner No.2. The case of the petitioners is that originally the land bearing Sy.No.15 totally measuring 2 acres 3 guntas of Hulimavu village was owned and possessed by one Venkatappa. That in terms of registered Sale Deed dated 03.04.1974, the said Venkatappa sold the entire extent of the land in favour of one Muniyamma. The said Muniyamma passed away on 18.07.2003, leaving behind petitioner No.1 as her son, who succeeded the aforesaid property. Accordingly, his name was muted in the revenue records. Petitioner No.1 had conveyed the property measuring 50'X80' in favour of his wife-the petitioner No.2 in terms of Registered Gift Deed dated 02.11.2021 and also obtained registration of Khata in the revenue records maintained by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike. Thus the petitioners have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property as absolute owners thereof. 2. Further, case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2-BDA had proposed to acquire the aforesaid property in terms of preliminary notification dated 08.09.1987 is followed by final notification dated 28.07.1990, for the purpose of formation of BTM, 6th Phase layout. It is contended that though the notification was issued and award had been approved, respondent No.2-BDA has not taken possession of the aforesaid land, and same continues to be with the petitioners till date. That though the land was acquired for the purpose of formation of layout, no sites have been formed as claimed by the respondent No.2-BDA. 3. It is further contended that larger extent of land acquired under the aforesaid notification is still lying vacant, even as per the status report obtained by the petitioners as per the Annexure-K. It is contended that the contents of the said status report would indicate that out of 388.09 acres of land acquired by respondent No.2-BDA, only an extent of 117.01 acres was handed over to Engineering Department, of which - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 only an extent of 31.02 acres has been utilized for the formation of layout. 4. It is specifically contended that the petitioners have not approached this Court or any other Court with respect to their land while continuing to be in the possession of the property. 5. Though by a memo dated 12.02.2025, petitioners have sought for deletion of respondent Nos.3 to 5 from the array of parties, at paragraph No.6 of the petition, it is contended that the said private respondents had encroached upon the property of the petitioners by putting up construction thereon, which had constrained the petitioners to approach the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.2217/2023. That though the petitioners were entitled for the compensation, they have not received any compensation and there is no deposit of compensation by the respondent No.2-BDA either. Though respondent No.2-BDA claimed to have drawn the mahazar, the possession still continues to be with the petitioners. 6. It is contended that under the circumstances, the scheme not having been implemented even after lapse of five - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 years as per Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (for short, 'BDA Act') and respondent No.2-BDA has not evicted the petitioners from the land, the same shall be deemed to have lapsed. On these grounds, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for following reliefs: "a. Kindly declare that the Final Notification issued by the BDA in Madivala Layout (BTM Layout, 6th Stage) bearing No.HUD/231/MNX/90 dated 28.07.1990 as per ANNEXURE- F Is lapsed and so far as the Petitioners' land bearing Sy. No. 15 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas situated at Hulimavu village, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru concerned. Consequently kindly hold and declare that the Final Notification bearing No.HUD/231/MNX/90 dated 28.07.1990 as per ANNEXURE- F issued by the Respondent No.1 Authority so far as the land of the Petitioners is concerned in Sy. No. 15 situated at Hulimavu village, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 2 acres 3 guntas cannot be implemented to secure the ends of justice and equity.. b. Kindly also declare that, since the possession of the property not having been taken as per Section 36 of the BDA Act, is inapplicable to the land of Petitioners at Sy. No. 15 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas situated at Hulimavu village, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru to secure the ends of justice and equity. C. Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case." 7. Learned counsel Sri.S R Hegde, appearing for the petitioners through video conference, reiterating the averments and the grounds urged therein, vehemently submits that though the acquisition is of the year 1990, even after lapse of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 35 years, respondent No.2 - BDA has not implemented the scheme and the land still continues to be in possession of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, he submits that the provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act squarely applies to the facts of the case, warranting declaration of acquisition having been lapsed. He refers to an order dated 19.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.55159/2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court produced along with a memo dated 16.11.2021 and contends that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under the similar facts situated in the matter, in respect of the very same notification, had held that the scheme has not been implemented in respect of the properties of the petitioners in the said petition, and allowed the writ petition by holding the scheme having lapsed. He submits that petitioners are similarly situated as that of the petitioners in the said writ petition, and petitioners should also be given similar benefit. Hence, seeks for allowing the writ petition. 8. Sri. K Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-BDA taking this Court through the statement of objections and documents enclosed therein, submits that admittedly, award had been passed, mahazar had been drawn, possession - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 had been taken and notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'L.A. Act') had been issued, as far back as in the year 1995. He submits that the petition filed after lapse of 28 years of taking possession cannot be sustained on the ground of delay and latches. He further submits the petitioner No.2 claims to have acquired portion of the property in terms of deed of Gift dated 02.11.2021, which is void-ab-inito. 9. He vehemently contended that the petition also suffers from suppression of material fact in that he submits that petitioners have not disclosed about their mother-Smt. Muniyamma having approached this Court challenging the very same notification by filling a Writ Petition in W.P.No.22900/1994, which was dismissed by order of this Court on 10.08.1994. He further submits that thereafter mother of the petitioner No.1 had filed two suits, one in O.S.No.10250/1995 which was dismissed on 17.12.1996 and another suit in O.S.No.4999/1999, which was also dismissed on 12.07.2012. Thus, he submits that mother of the petitioners having questioned/challenged the notification unsuccessfully before this Court and by filing suits before the Civil Court, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives, cannot agitate the same by way of present writ petition. He submits that after acquisition, the BDA formed the layout, particularly 42 sites of different dimensions have been formed in the petition schedule property bearing Sy.No.15 and the same have been allotted to as many as 45 allottees right from the year 2000 till the year 2015. He submits that there were certain encroachments made by some unauthorized persons, which were cleared by respondent No.2-BDA as found at Annexure- R10. It is only on clearance of such encroachments, the petitioners have devised as scheme to come before this Court in the present petition seeking relief of the declaration of the notification having lapsed. Thus, he submits that petition apart from suffering from delay and latches, is filed with mala fide intentions without any merits, requires to be dismissed. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. Specific averments are made in the writ petition at paragraph No.5 to the effect that the petitioners have not approached this Court or any other Court in respect to their lands; that the land in question is not at all acquired; - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 possession is not taken till date; and the petitioners have therefore continued to be in possession of this property till date. 12. The aforesaid averments run contrary to the material produced by the respondent-BDA, more particularly the order dated 10.08.1994 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22900/1994 produced at Annexure-R7. Perusal of which would indicate that mother of the petitioner No.1 Smt. M. Maniyamma, had filed this said writ petition seeking quash of the preliminary notification dated 08.07.1987 and final notification dated 28.07.1990. Said writ petition was dismissed by the following order: "The petitioner is calling in question the action of the respondent on the ground that, they are trespassing into the land of the petitioner without authority of law and digging trenches in the paddy field and interfering with the right and possession of the property. In such matters, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to file a civil suit and obtain necessary relief. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to entertain this petition. petition is therefore, rejected." 13. There has been no challenge to the said order. Thus the challenge to the acquisition made by the mother of the petitioner No.1 has attained finality. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 14. It is also not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner No.1 thereafter had filed two suits, one in O.S.No.10250/1995 and another in O.S.No.4999/1999, both against the respondent-BDA for relief of injunction, which have been dismissed on 17.12.1996 and 12.07.2012 respectively. 15. The above being the factual aspect of the matter, the contentions of the petitioners that they never approached this Court or any other Court despite they being the legal representatives of Smt. M. Muniyamma cannot be countenanced. Thus, there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent- BDA that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact and have not approached the Court with clean hands. 16. As regards the other contention urged by the petitioners that even after acquisition of land, possession has not been taken and the petitioners continuing to be in the possession of the land is concerned, the very averments found at paragraph Nos.6 and 9 of the Writ Petition would defy the said contentions. In that petitioners themselves have claimed that the private respondents had encroached upon the land and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 had put up construction thereon.. Clearly, petitioners cannot claim to be in the possession of the land. 17. Whereas, as seen from Annexure-R10 produced by the respondent-BDA, certain encroachments have been removed by the respondent-BDA, which were apparently put up by some third parties. It is only thereafter the petitioners seem to have approached this Court by way of present petition seeking an innovative relief of lapsing of acquisition. Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 provides as under: "Scheme sanctioned-Lapsing of-Failure of Authority to execute scheme substantially within five years as prescribed-Where failure of Authority to execute scheme was solely on account of filibustering litigations initiated by erstwhile owners of acquired lands and purchasers to whom owners illegally sold acquired lands, no laches could be attributed to Authority and scheme cannot be declared as lapsed at instance of very same persons who cause obstructions for their own gains." 18. For the purpose of lapsing of acquisition under Section 27 of the Act, 1976, it is necessary for the petitioner to aver that there has been dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-BDA in implementing the scheme substantially - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 resulting in its lapsing as contemplated thereunder. Nothing is averred in this regard in the petition. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA has produced the material to justify the contention of substantial implement of scheme. It is necessary also to refer to the material produced by the learned counsel for the respondent-BDA regarding 42 sites of different dimensions having been formed by the respondent-BDA particularly within the land, subject matter of the present petition as found at Annexure-R8. Further information furnished by learned counsel for the respondent-BDA by filing a memo dated 21.08.2023 would indicate that the aforesaid sites have been allotted to various allottees. It is appropriate to extract the contents of Annexure-R8 and list of allottees as furnished by the respondent-BDA, which are as under: Sl. No. Site No Measurement In Mtrs. Allotment Date Name of the allottee 1 01 9.14x12.19 - PÁwðPï ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï (§zÀ° ¤ªÉñÀ£À) 2 02 9.14x12.19 20.12.2000 JA.Dgï.NA¥ÀæPÁ±ï 3 02/A 18.00x12.00 26.08.2013 Dgï.²æäªÁ¸À & Dgï.ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï 4 03 9.00x12.00 31.01.2000 ©.«.C±ÉÆÃPï 5 04 9.14x13.71 31.01.2000 ªÉÊ.PÉ.C£ÀAvÀgÁªï 6 05 9.14x15.24 31.01.2000 n.J£ï.®QëöäÃPÁAvï 7 16 9.00x12.00 07.07.2000 PÉ.dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 8 17 9.00x12.00 19.10.2005 gÀ²ä gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥ÉÊ 9 17/A 9.00x12.00 07.07.2000 PÉ.¨ÉÆÃgÉUËqÀ gÀªÀjUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÀt ¸ÀAzÁ¬Ä¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À@ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 10 17/B 9.00x12.00 06.08.2002 JA.Dgï.ªÀÄAdļÀ gÀªÀjUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À@ÁVzÉ. 11 17/C 9.00x12.00 - - 12 01/A 9.00x12.00 - - 13 01/B 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 JA.¥ÀÄlÖ¸Áé«Ä 14 01/C 9.00x12.00 - - 15 01/D 9.00x12.00 - - 16 01/E 9.00x12.00 - - 17 01/F 9.00x12.00 - - 18 01/G 9.00x12.00 - - 19 04/A 12.10x9.14 06.01.2014 JA.gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà ©£ï ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà 20 04/B 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 JA.¥ÀÄlÖ¸Áé«Ä 21 04/C 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 J.±ÁAvÀªÀÄÆwð 22 04/D 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 J¸ï.¨Á§Ä 23 04/E 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 J¸ï.¥ÀÄgÀĵÉÆÃvÀÛªÀÄ 24 04/F 6.00x9.00 30.05.2015 ¸É®égÀvÀßA 25 04/G 6.00x9.00 28.02.2005 «£ÀAiÀÄ f.JA. 26 04/H 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 f.£ÁUÀgÁdÄ 27 04/I 6.00x9.00 28.02.2005 ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï gÀ¦ü 28 05/A 6.00x9.00 06.01.2014 JA.gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà ©£ï ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 29 05/B 6.00x9.00 29.04.2013 ªÀĺÀzÉêÀAiÀÄå, ºÉÆ£ÀßAiÀÄå, PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà 30 05/C 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 J¸ï.¸ÀIJîªÀÄä 31 05/D 6.00x9.00 14.02.2020 ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï ¥ÀQÃgï CºÀªÀÄäzï 32 05/E 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 f.ªÀiÁAiÀÄzÉë 33 05/F 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 ±ÀQÛ ¨Á¬Ä 34 05/G 6.00x9.00 - ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï G¸Áä£ï vÀ¨ÉæÃeï 35 05/H 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 F±ÀégÀ PÀĪÀiÁgï 36 05/I 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 eÉ.¥ÉæêÀÄ 37 05/J 6.00x9.00 27.04.2013 f. J£ï. £ÀgÀ¹AºÀªÀÄÆwð 38 05/K 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 ¦.ªÀ°è 39 05/L 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 ¸ÀgÉÆÃd 40 05/M 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 «.a£ÀßAiÀÄå£ï 41 05/N 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï ¹. 42 05/O 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 ªÀÄAUÀ® 43 05/P 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 CtÚAiÀĪÀÄä 44 05/Q 6.00x9.00 09.01.2003 JA.PÀtðªÀÄÆwð 45 05/R 6.00x9.00 18.01.2014 UËgÀªÀÄä 19. Reliance placed on by the counsel for the petitioners on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.55159/2014 dated 19.07.2022 is of no avail, inasmuch as the material produced by the respondent-BDA, particularly with regard to the subject land having been utilized for formation of layout and the same having been allotted to the persons referred to above. The land having been acquired as - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6336 WP No. 14240 of 2023 for back as in the year 1990. The award admittedly having been passed in the year 1993, possession having been taken and notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act having been issued on 08.04.1994 and the subject land having utilized for the formation of layout as detailed herein above, this Court do not see any reasons or merits for granting a relief of declaration of scheme having been lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act and no grounds to grant any consequent relief as sought for. 20. In the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14