- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 23794 OF 2023 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 500 OF 2019 (LA-BDA) IN WP No. 23794/2023 BETWEEN: SRI ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE G CHINNANNA AND LATE SAVITHRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO. 546/506, VYSHNAVI ENTERPRISE, B H ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISRICT - 561 208 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHNAKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE., HCGP FOR R1, SRI.H.T. BASAVARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THE SCHEME FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND IN SY.NO.82/1 MEASURING TO AN EXTEND OF 1 ACRE SITUATED AT NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, BANGALORE HAS LAPSED AS PER SECTION 27 OF BDA ACT AND QUASH ACQUISITION OF LAND IN SY.NO.82/1 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE SITUATED AT NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, BANGALORE VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD 15.07.1982 BEARING NO.A6.H.R.SLAO (8) 201/82-83 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 500/2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE VIVEKANANDA JANATHA HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ANJANEYAPPA GUARDEN MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 REP. BY THE SECRETARY NAGAPPA 2. L JAYARAM S/O P LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.54, SRI RAGAHVENDRA NILAYA 6TH BLOCK, 3RD CROSS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 PADARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560026 3. LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA W/O LAKSHMI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS NO.74, AKKIPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560053 4. JAYALAKSHMI D/O GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.12, 4TH MAIN, BYRAVESHWARA NAGARA BENGALURU-560072 5. JAYALAKSHMI D/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.256, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS KALYANA NAGARA BENGALURU-560072 6. M N RAVINDRA S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY NO.6, 8TH MAIN, CHBCS LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMAR GOWDA K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE., HCGP FOR R1, SRI.B.VACHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IN SY.NO.82/1 MEASURING 1 ACRE 19 GUNTAS, SY.NO.82/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 21 GUNTAS (82 MEASURING 3 ACRES) OF NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE BANGALORE WHICH IS NOTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION BY MEANS OF PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BY 15/07/1982 MADE VIDE ANNEXURE-E & FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.1985 VIDE ANNEXURE- F UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT FOR FORMATION OF LAYOUT CALLED "NAGARABHAVI 1ST STAGE" IS LAPSED IN VIEW OF SECTION 27 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The subject matter of these two writ petitions is Sy.No.82/1 measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas of land and Sy.No.82/1 measuring 1 Acre 21 Guntas of land, situated at Nagarabhavi village, Bengaluru. The petitioner in W.P.No.23794/2023, is the owner of the larger extent of land and the 1st petitioner-The Vivekananda Janatha House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., in the connected W.P.No.500/2019, has purchased the land in question from the original owner for the purpose of formation of a layout and allotment of sites for the benefit of its members. Both the writ petitions have been filed calling in question the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State Government of Karnataka for the benefit of the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) for formation of the Nagarabhavi I stage layout. 2. Learned Counsels for the petitioners submit having regard to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy & Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 129, that directions were issued to the BDA to reconsider whether small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which are not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition would be suitable for forming self contained layouts. It was also held that the acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. It was also directed that similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner. 3. The attention of this Court is also drawn to a decision of this Court in W.P.No.9246/2021 dated 18.08.2023 in the case of Sri.B.Viajayakumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, wherein this Court has held as follows: “8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent - BDA - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 and having perused the petition papers, this Court finds that having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY, the opinion of the Commissioner in his order dated 18.04.2023 cannot be accepted. Having regard to the map submitted by the BDA and the photographs furnished at the hands of the petitioner, it is clear that all the neighbouring properties have been left out of the acquisition proceedings and what remains is two small pieces of property belonging to the petitioner and Sri M.Sheshappa. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has reasonably clarified the position regarding the change in the survey number and therefore there cannot be any doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the ownership of the property in question standing in the name of the petitioner. The facts narrated in the order dated 18.04.2023 by the Commissioner also supports the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the two properties are distinct and different and there cannot be any confusion about the land belonging to the petitioner and Sri M.Sheshappa and others. However, the opinion of the Commissioner that the two pieces of land which on paper measures about 2 acres and 24 guntas could be formed as a stand-alone layout, would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 RAMASWAMY. A layout which is required to be formed by the BDA should be a self contained layout. The layout should contain residential sites, commercial area, roads, civic amenities sites, parks, playground etc. The proposition of forming island layout in small pieces of property has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, this Court would not hesitate to hold that the opinion of the Commissioner in his order dated 18.04.2023 would be contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY. When it is clear that all the neighbouring properties surrounding the lands in question have not been utilised for formation of a layout, it would be impermissible for the BDA to form a separate layout in the land in question. The directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY more particularly clause(ii) of paragraph No.160 would apply on all fours to the facts and circumstances of this case.” 4. Learned Counsel would also drawn the attention of this Court to the Affidavit dated 28.02.2025 filed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority. It is pointed out from paragraph No.4 of the Affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 “4. I further state that in Sy.No.82/1 total an extent of 3-00 Acre has not developed by BDA, because of existence of interim order and pendency of cases. In Survey number 82/1 total an extent of 3-00 has been surrounded by Sy.No.66, 67, 70, 76, 77, 82/2, 83/1 and 83/2. The said surrounded survey numbers lands have been built up by private persons. The petition schedule property is part of acquired property an extent of 3-00 Acre.” 5. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsels would vehemently contend that the matters stand squarely covered by the said decision in the case of Sri.B.Vijayakumar (supra). 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent- BDA would contend that the Commissioner in his Affidavit has clearly stated that the surrounding land of Sy.No.82/1 are all exclusively vested with the BDA by virtue of the preliminary notification and final notification. It is contended that barring the few neighboring lands surrounding the land in question, where private layout is formed or constructions are put up by the private persons, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 Nagarabhavi Layout has been formed and sites have been allotted by the BDA to the allottees. 7. Learned Counsel Sri.B.Vachan appearing for the respondent-BDA in W.P.No.500/2019 submits that the detailed statement of objections have been filed at the hands of the respondent-BDA contending that the petitioners herein are subsequent purchasers and they will have no legs to stand before this Court to call in question the acquisition proceedings. It is also submitted that earlier too, the writ petition was being filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.4644/1989 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 04.01.1990. That being the position, the writ petitions are hit by the principles of res judicata and the writ petitions should not be entertained by this Court. It is also submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 37 years in filing the writ petitions calling in question the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1985. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA and the learned - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 Additional Government Advocate and perused the petitions papers. 9. Insofar as the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court calling in question the acquisition proceedings and therefore, these writ petitions are hit by principles of res judicata, cannot be countenanced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram & Another Vs. State of Haryana & Others, (2010) 3 SCC 621 and Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and Other, (2012) 12 SCC 443, has held that as regards the acquisition proceedings, the owners of the property are entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings at various stages, such as issuance of preliminary notification, a final notification, an award being passed and where a provisions available for raising a challenge that the scheme as lapsed, thereto, a subsequent cause of action may arise for the land owners. It was therefore held that contentions cannot be raised at the hands of the acquiring body that a writ petition filed at the hands of the land - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 owners was earlier dismissed and therefore, a subsequent writ petition cannot be maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that a subsequent cause of action, as in the present case where a challenge is raised on the ground that the scheme has lapsed and the layout has not been implemented substantially, would be a fresh cause of action and therefore, the writ petitions are maintainable. 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA regarding the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the writ petitions, is again to be rejected on the same ground that the question of lapsing of the scheme would arise for the land owners to seek the quashment of the notifications at a very later stage. It is the contention of the petitioners that though the final notification was issued in the year 1985 and possession was taken long ago and though there was no impediment for the respondent-BDA to proceed to form the layout on the land in question till an interim order was passed by this Court in the writ petitions, they have not - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 formed the layout on the land in question. It is therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent- BDA is therefore to be rejected, since it is the contention of the petitioners that even as on day the layout has not been formed on the land in question, though there was no impediment for the respondent-BDA to proceed to form the layout, since there was no orders of this Court preventing the formation of the layout on the land in question. 11. The attention of this Court is drawn to statement of objections filed in W.P.No.23794/2023, where it is contended that the Vivekananda Janatha House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., had filed a suit in O.S.No.258/1990 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the City Civil Court had passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo which is also binding on the BDA. The said suit was dismissed on 13.07.2016. Thereafter, a regular first appeal was filed by the Society in RFA No.1571/2016 and therefore, it is contended that the BDA could not proceed to form the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 layout. This again is a contention that would support the writ petitioners, since even after 2016 when the suit was dismissed, the BDA did not proceed to form the layout on the land in question. The petitioners have waited for a period of three years before filing W.P.No.500/2019, and this could be taken as a reasonable period within which the layout could have been formed by the respondent- BDA. 12. This aspect of the matter coupled with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy (supra) clearly supports the contentions of the petitioners. The Affidavit filed at the hands of the respondent-Commissioner of BDA makes it very clear that all the lands surrounding the land in question are also not a BDA layout. Private layouts have been permitted to be developed all around the lands in question. Therefore, the lands in question stands alone as an island surrounded by private layouts and developments. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 13. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsels for the petitioners are right in contending that the view held by this Court in the case of Sri.B.Vijayakumar (supra) applies on all fours to the facts and circumstances of these cases. When it is clear that the lands surrounding the land in question have been developed by the private parties, 3.00 Acres of land belonging to the petitioners would become an island where a self sustainable layout cannot be formed by the respondent-BDA, the claim of the petitioners have to be upheld. 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions have to succeed in view of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 and final notification dated 16.08.1985, insofar as Sy.No.82/1 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15946 WP No. 23794 of 2023 C/W WP No. 500 of 2019 measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas and Sy.No.82/1 measuring 1 Acre 21 Guntas of lands situated at Nagarabhavi village, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. 15. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL