- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO. 487 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ST MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SHARADAMMA NO 156, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, RT NAGAR, HMT LAYOUT BANGALORE 560032. 2. SRI N GARUDIAH S/O NARASIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, NO 725, AGB LAYOUT. HASAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 BANGALORE – 560090 3. SRI. H. ANATHACHAR S/O LATE H RAGHUNATHACHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS HOUSE NO 1-E-4, HMT COLONY, BANGALORE-560031 4. SRI G KUMAR S/O SMT LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO 14, SY NO 70/2, PEENYA VILLAGE YESWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560058. 5. SRI M R SRINIVASIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS NO 6, PEENYA VILLAGE, COLLEGE ROAD, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. 6. SRI Y VENKATESH S/O YELAKKI KEMPIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO 4/28, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PEENYA NEW EXTN BANGALORE-560058. 7. SRI M SURESH S/O LATE MADIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO 357, 7TH MAIN, PEENYA IST BLOCK, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560058 8. SRI R H MANJUNATH S/O SRI HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO 51/1, 1ST MAIN, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 ANJENYA TEMPLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560091. 9. SRI IMRAN KHAN S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SRS ROAD, 1ST CROSS, PEENYA NEW EXTN BANGALORE-560058. 10. MR SJ RAJARATHINAM S/O MR N S SALETH AGED 88 YEARS COIMBATORE BY POWER OF ATTORNEY MR BYLANARASAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, NO 29, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KRISHNA GOWDA LAYOUT, T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560057. 11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HOUSING URBAN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPORTMENT MS BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.ASHOK KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, R6 TO R9 SRI.K.R.RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R10 SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R11) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2019 IN W.P. NO.56182-56190 AND 56191/2016(LA-BDA), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This Review Petition has been filed at the hands of the Bangalore Development Authority and the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to review the order dated 24.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.56182-56190 & 56191/2016. On the face of it, there is a huge delay of more than five (5) years in filing the review petition. However, learned counsel for the review petitioners points out to the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in W.A.No.39/2022 and submits that writ appeal was filed in the year 2022 calling in question the orders passed in W.P.No.56182-56190 & 56191/2016. However, it is seen that the writ appeal was withdrawn at the hands of the petitioners herein seeking liberty to file this review petition. Accordingly, writ appeal was dismissed as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 withdrawn, while reserving liberty to the petitioners. Therefore, this review petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.10 has filed a memo along with certain documents. Attention of this Court is drawn to the order dated 14.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.14836/2008. Learned counsel submits that the order impugned herein was based on the said writ petition No.14836/2008, which again pertains to the same survey numbers, viz., Sy.No.67/1, 67/2, 68 and 70/1 of Peenya Village, Bangalore North Taluk. It was held in the said writ petition that Sy.No.67/2 and 68 were converted from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes and thereafter the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.11.1974. Final notification was issued on 19.12.1975. Although, it was contended at the hands of the Bangalore Development Authority that possession was taken on 15.11.1976, nevertheless, it was admitted that notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 on 06.03.2000 and the Officials of the Bangalore Development Authority had demolished the structures existing on the land in question on 28.09.2005, while dispossessing the petitioners. This Court therefore held that the final notification was issued after lapse of one year from the date of preliminary notification and the notification under Section 16(2) was issued after lapse of 25 years and therefore the action of the Bangalore Development Authority was clearly time barred. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, while setting aside the notifications of acquisition dated 21.11.1974, 19.12.1975 and 06.03.2000, insofar as the petitioners therein are concerned. It was also held that the demolition of structures at the hands of the Bangalore Development Authority was illegal, arbitrary and high handed. The Bangalore Development Authority was directed to restore the possession of the sites to the petitioners. The said order was challenged by the Bangalore Development Authority in W.A.No.519/2011 and 5264-72/2011 and the appeal was dismissed on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 02.12.2011. Further, the SLP filed by the Bangalore Development Authority in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10199-10208/2012 was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 04.05.2012. Taking note of the same, the writ petitions No.56182-56190 and 56191/2016 were allowed while declaring that the notifications have lapsed insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned. 3. It is noticeable that delay of three years in filing the writ appeal was not condoned by the Division Bench in W.A.No.519/2011 & W.A.Nos.5264-72/2011 and the same has been upheld at the hands of the Apex Court. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner seeks to point out that some of the respondents, who are the purchasers of individual sites, although in same survey number, they have purchased the sites after the issuance of the preliminary notification. 5. This Court finds that in the original order passed in W.P.No.14836/2008, this fact was indeed noticed by this court in paragraph No.4. It was seen from - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13302 RP No. 487 of 2024 the records that some of the petitioners had purchased the sites in question prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification dated 21.11.1974. This would mean that even in the said writ petition there were some petitioners who had purchased the sites after the issuance of the preliminary notification. Therefore, such distinction sought to be made by the learned counsel is of no avail. 6. Even on the question of delay and laches, the delay of three years in filing the writ appeal in the present petition is similar to the one that was considered in the earlier W.A.No.519/2011 & W.A.Nos.5264-72/2011. Therefore, on the question of delay and laches too review petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL