- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.28346 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI PARTHASARATHY S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SRI PRASANNAKUMAR S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SRI. V. MADHUSUDHANA S/O LATE V VASANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. SRI V. MURALI, S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PULAKESHI A.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-1 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ON 21.06.2024 IN PROCEEDINGS NOTING NO.39 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking to quash the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in proceedings Noting No.39 rejecting their claim for grant an incentive site on the ground that there is no specific order passed by the Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents-authority had unanimously resolved to allot site measuring 40 x 60 feet or two sites measuring 30 x 40 feet each to the petitioners under the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (‘Incentive Scheme’ for short) for voluntary surrender of land, as per the resolution dated 20.05.2022. It is submitted that despite such a resolution, respondent No.1 has rejected the claim through the impugned order/endorsement. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the order passed by respondent No.1 and contends that no interference is called for. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the material on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners in Sy. No.27, Kothanur Village, measuring 1 acre 33 guntas, was notified under the preliminary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 notification, confirmed in the final notification, and an award was passed. The petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceeding, but their challenge was rejected and the order attained finality in the Writ Appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under the Incentive Scheme seeking allotment of an Incentive Site under the said Rules. The said application was rejected by an order dated 31.12.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. No.12055/2004 which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration in accordance with law. Upon remand, respondent No.2 once again passed similar order, which was challenged by the petitioners. Ultimately, respondent No.3 issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the claim on the ground that there was no specific order of this Court directing allotment. 7. The material on record shows that the Sub- Committee of the respondent-authority, in its meeting held on 20.05.2022, unanimously resolved to allot to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 petitioners a site measuring 40 x 60 feet or two sites measuring 30 x 40 each, under the Incentive Scheme. The relevant portion of the resolution is extracted below: “«±ÉõÀ CªÀgÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ G¥À¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄAr¹gÀĪÀ n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è Zàað¸À¯ÁzÀAvÉ, ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ «µÀaiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåB33/2018, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.03.2018 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀzÀ£ÀavÀgÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁVgÀĪÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ¤tðAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸À®ºÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ jmï ¦nµÀ£ï £ÀA.28464/2018 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ £ÀavÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½, PÉÆvÀÛ£ÀÆgÀÄ UáæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.27 gÀ 03 JPÀgÉ 04 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¥ÉÊQ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æà «.ªÀ¸ÀAvïPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ 01 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¨Á§ÄÛ 40*60 C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ (1) CxÀªÁ 30*40 C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ (2) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²æà «. ªÀ¸ÀAvÀPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw gÁd®Qëäà PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï «.ªÀ¸ÀAvÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ¥ÁxÀð¸ÁgÀy, « ¥Àæ¸À£Àß PÀĪÀiÁgï, ²æà «.ªÀÄzsÀĸÀÆzÀ£ï, ²æà «. ªÀÄÄgÀ½ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï «.ªÀ¸ÀAvÀPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è dAnAiÀiÁV ºÀaaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀåzÉAzÀÄ G¥À ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ M¦à ²¥üÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” (emphasis supplied) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 8. However, respondent No.3, without considering the said resolution, has issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioners’ claim. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the petitioners’ claim, without reference to the Sub-Committee’s resolution dated 20.05.2022 is unsustainable and warrants interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 on 21.06.2024 at Annexure-J in respect of Sl. No.39 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the impugned endorsement dated 01.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-M is also hereby set-aside. iii. Respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider the petitioners’ representation dated 02.07.2024 at Annexure-L in light of the resolution dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41665 WP No. 28346 of 2024 20.05.2022, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings, and keeping in view that they are entitled to benefits under the BDA Rules. iv. The respondent-BDA shall pass a considered order within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL/MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55