- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 56856 OF 2014 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI L SHIVARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, R/AT SUBBAIAH REDDY GARDEN, H.S.R. LAYOUT, SECTOR-IV, AGARA VILLAGE, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL ADDITIONA LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.12.1984 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 17.01.1985 VIDE ANNX-A, WHEREIN THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED AT SL.NO.148 AND ALSO THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 28.11.1986 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 25.12.1986 VIDE ANNX-B, WHEREIN THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED SL.NO.146, ISUED BY THE R- 1 AND ETC. 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 claiming to be the son of one Lakshmaiah Reddy the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy.No.146 measuring 2 acres 30 gunta situated at Agara village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, is before this Court for the second time being aggrieved by the acquisition of the said land made by the respondent-BDA in terms of the Preliminary - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 Notification dated 15.12.1984 followed by the Final Notification dated 17.01.1985 for the purpose of formation of HSR layout. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the matter, it is appropriate to note that the petitioner on earlier occasion had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.2103/2007 seeking direction to the State Government to delete the aforesaid 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.146. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 18.03.2009 while disposing of the said writ petition had issued direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by holding that the notification issued under sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was a nullity. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-BDA had preferred an appeal in Writ Appeal No.1810/2009. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25.06.2012 while allowing the said writ appeal at para 5 has observed and held as under; "5. At this stage, Sri. Gangireddy, learned counsel submits that under same notification adjoining land owner's property are denotified by the Government. If the Government has wrongly denotified the adjoining land owner's property, same cannot be a ground for this Court to issue writ of mandamus. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arkavathi layout's case, land owners are entitled to 50% of the developed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 land. If it is so, it is for respondent No.1 to approach the appellant and the Government and if case falls within the scheme, it is always open for the appellant and the Government to consider the request of the owner of the property." 3. Subsequent to orders of the Division Bench in the aforesaid W.A.No.1810/2009 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition raising a plea that the respondent-BDA has failed to implement the Scheme for over 28 years which would amount to lapsing of the Scheme under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'BDA Act') and as such has sought for the following reliefs; "1. Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction, in the nature of a Writ, quashing the Preliminary Notification dated 15.12.1984 in No.HUD/295/MNX/84 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 17.01.1985 vide Annexure - A, wherein the land of the Petitioner is notified at Sl.No.148 and also the Final Notification dt.28.11.1986 in No.HUD/ 444/ MNX/ 86 which was published in Karnataka Gazette on 25.12.1986 Vide Annexure-B, wherein the land of the Petitioner is notified Sl.No.146, issued by the 1st Respondent. 2. Declare that the entire acquisition proceedings conducted by the Respondents, so far as the land bearing Sy.No.146 measuring 2 Acres 30 Guntas situated at Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore as lapsed, as the Respondents failed to implement the scheme within a period of 5 years from the date of declaration, as per Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 3. Pass such other orders, as the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity." 4. It is submitted across the Bar that a Special Leave to Appeal in SLA (C) No.16302/2016 in the meanwhile is filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.06.2012 passed in W.A.No.1810/2009 which is pending consideration and that by an order dated 08.05.2017 the Apex Court has directed the said matter to be listed after disposal of the present petition, which order reads as under; "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. List the matter after disposal of Writ Petition (C) No.56856 of 2014 pending before the High Court of Karnataka. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall inform the Court about the disposal of the said writ petition by the High Court. The High Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the writ petition pending before it." 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the issue pertaining to validity or otherwise of the acquisition was raised earlier by the petitioner including challenge to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 issuance of notification under sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is now stated to be pending consideration before the Apex Court, he would restrict his submissions in the instant petition only to the extent of applicability of provisions of Section 27 of the BDA Act and the abandonment of the project. It is in this background the present petition is taken up for hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner; (a) drawing attention of this Court to a communication dated 10.07.1991, produced at Annexure-Q at page 88 to the writ papers, purported to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the respondent- BDA, submits that the petitioner was given to understand that the respondent- BDA would not acquire the entire extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner as the same not having been developed and that the same would be dropped. (b) He further refers to Office Notes of the respondent- BDA produced at Annexure-R page 89, wherein the Chairman of the respondent -BDA had purportedly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 approved the proposal to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. (c) Relying to a sketch enclosed at Annexure-M to the writ petition he points out that the land belonging to the petitioner is still kept vacant, unused indicating respondent -BDA having abandoned the project. (d) He also refers to the land in Sy.No.147/2 situated on the southern side and the land in Sy.No.149 situated on the western side of the land of the petitioner to contend that respondent-State had denotified the said lands at the instance of private parties similarly situated as that of the petitioner. (e) Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.18071-18072/2014 dated 15.3.2016 to contend that acquisition in respect of 16 Guntas of land out of 1 acre of the very same Sy.No.146/A having been held to have lapsed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 (f) Further relying upon another order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 27.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.16865/2022 pertaining to the acquisition made by the respondent -BDA in respect of a layout called as "Banashankari VI Stage", learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under similar facts situation of the matter and taking note of communication that was issued by the respondent- BDA, as issued in the instant case, this Court had held acquisition having been lapsed. (g) Thus, based on the aforesaid material, leaned counsel insist similar benefit be accorded to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the respondent-BDA is choosing discriminating mode to acquire and denotify the lands. 7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent- BDA vehemently submits that; (a) the petitioner who was before this Court on earlier occasion has not raised the grounds as sought to be raised in the present petition. Therefore, he is precluded from raising said grounds. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 (b) He submits that question of de-notification of the adjoining land and the claim made by the petitioner on principles of parity has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of challenge as noted at para 5 of the order. Thus, he submits the petitioner cannot claim the same relief on the ground of parity in the present petition either. (c) On merits of the case, he submits that admittedly preliminary notification was issued on 15.12.1984 and final notification was issued on 28.11.1986. Award was passed on 07.07.1987 and the same was deposited. Possession of acquired land was taken on 15.07.1987. Notification under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued on 29.09.1987. That after lapse of 20 years thereafter, the petitioner preferred first writ petition in W.P.No.2103/2007 which was though initially allowed was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, challenge to which is still pending consideration before the Apex Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 (d) He submits the total extent of land acquired for formation of HSR layout is 1664 acres. That the land in Sy.No.146 totally measures 21 acres 23 guntas of which the petition schedule property forms part of. The entire extent of land is fully developed, sites are formed and allotted to various prospective allottees who have now constructed residential houses and other buildings. Therefore, he submits that the contention of the petitioner the Scheme has not been substantially implemented, resulting in lapsing of the scheme, cannot be countenanced. (e) He refers to Section 27 of the BDA Act to justify his contention that petitioner at the first instance has to establish that the scheme had not been substantially implemented due to dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-BDA which is not the case at hand. He submits case of the petitioner in isolation cannot be taken into consideration to consider lapsing under Section 27 of the BDA Act. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 (f) As regards the contention of the counsel of the petitioner referring to the communications purportedly issued by the Deputy Commissioner produced at Annexure-Q at page 88 and the Office Noting produced at Annexure-R at page 89 he submits that the said documents do not evince the credibility in the eyes of law as they do not meet the requirement of law contemplated for the purpose of denotification either under the BDA Act or under the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, he submits the petition lacks merit, seeks for dismissal of the same. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. Admittedly preliminary notification was issued on 15.12.1984 and final notification was issued on 28.11.1986. As per the averments made in the statement of objections, the award was approved on 07.07.1987, the land was handed over to engineering section on 15.07.1987, compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court and the notification under Section 16(2) has been issued on 29.09.1987. Total land acquired is 1664 acres and the petitioner is claiming 2 acres 10 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 guntas. Present petition seeking declaration of scheme having lapsed is filed after 27 years. 10. Appropriate at this juncture to refer Section 27 of the BDA Act which is as under; "27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years-. Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 36 shall become inoperative." 11. Division Bench of this Court in the case of KANTHAMMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 1984 KAR. 1494 dealing with Section 27 of the BDA Act at paragraphs 6 and 7 has held as under; "6. For the scheme to lapse there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of the authority to execute the scheme substantially within five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. It seems to us that in the first place the "failure to execute the scheme" envisaged under Section 27 means that there must be dereliction of statutory duties without justification and not a mere delay in the execution of the scheme. Secondly, the "substantial execution" in the context depends upon the magnitude of the scheme and the nature of the work executed and remains to be executed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 7. In the very nature of the project in question, it is almost impossible for this Court to embark upon an enquiry on the contention raised by the Learned Counsel. The Court as observed by the learned Single Judge would be slow to interfere with the public projects, massive or minor, unless there is compelling reason. We do not find any such compelling reason in this Court." 12. Perusal of the petition would not indicate any averments having been made in the petition with regard to non-implementation of the Scheme due to dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-BDA. Even as noticed, admittedly respondent -BDA has acquired 1664 acres of land for formation of HSR Layout Scheme in respect of which is substantially implemented. There may be cases of a few pockets of land being lying vacant as that of the case of the petitioner, the same would under any circumstances not lead to the circumstances contemplated under Section 27 of the BDA Act. As such, the case of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act cannot be considered. 13. Also pertinent to refer to another order dated 01.12.2020 of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.1415/2018 in respect of very same notification subject - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 matter of the present petition in the case of SRI. L.RAMAREDDY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS confirming the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.04.2018 which had dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.17432/2014 that had been filed by the petitioners therein seeking to declare the acquisition having lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. At paragraph 16 of the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court has held as under; "16. Though the appellant has relied upon Offshore Holding Private Limited vs. Bengaluru Development Authority, reported in [(2011) 3 SCC 139] (Offshore Holding Private Limited), it is relevant to note that the said judgment itself stated that even if for any reason the scheme lapses, the acquisition would not. Moreover, on the facts of this case, it is pertinent to note that the 'HSR layout' scheme for the purpose of which the acquisition of the subject land, amongst the other lands, was initiated and has not lapsed, inasmuch as, the scheme has been implemented and there is a full fledged HSR layout, which has come into existence. Thus, we have considered the contentions of learned counsel for appellant on the basis of the aforesaid provisions." Thus, the aforesaid orders belie the very case of the petitioner of acquisition having lapsed or abandoned. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 14. Reliance placed on by learned counsel for the petitioner to Annexure-Q and Annexure-R purported communications issued by the Deputy Commissioner and purported approval issued by the Chairman are of no consequence, inasmuch as, there is no provision under BDA Act providing for denotification of the land. Reference in this regard can only be made under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under; "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.-(1) Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken." 15. Clear from the reading of the aforesaid provision is that it is only the Government which is vested with power to denotify/withdraw the land from acquisition provided that the possession of land is not taken. From the averments made in the petition and submission made by the counsel for the parties it is clear that possession of land has been taken. The only other ground urged is abandonment of the project. In that view of the matter, the communications at Annexure-Q and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5446 WP No. 56856 of 2014 Annexure-R relied upon by the petitioner are of no consequence. 16. As regards the grounds of parity the Division Bench of this Court at para 5 of its order dated 25.06.2012 passed in W.A.No.1810/2009 extracted hereinabove has already considered the said aspect of the matter by specifically holding a wrong denotification cannot be a ground for consideration of the case of the petitioner on parity. In any case the said order passed by the Division Bench, pending consideration before the Apex Court. Since the petitioner is essentially raising grounds under Section 27 of the BDA Act in the present petition for the aforesaid reasons and in the circumstances narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petition lacks merit. As such, the same is dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2