- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 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.25022 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GOPALAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 2. SRI DODDANARASAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 3. SRI CHANDRAPPA .N S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 4. SRI KRISHNAPPA .N S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BETTANAPALYA, BHEEMANAKUPPE DHAKHALE, RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 060. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.A. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 VIKASA SOUDA, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A SEEKING FOR ALLOTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SITES/LAND RATIO IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF LAND BEARING NO.45 MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BHEEMAKUPPE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK INSTEAD OF CASH COMPENSATION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.07.2025 vide Annexure-A seeking for allotment of developed sites/land in lieu of acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.45 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Bheemankuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk instead of cash compensation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. It is not in dispute that under the preliminary and final notification, the petitioners’ land was acquired. Respondent No.3 issued an award notice in the name of the grandmother of the petitioners, calling upon the family to produce the title deeds to determine the compensation in accordance with the new Government circular. As per the award notice, respondent No.3 informed the landowners that they could opt for land compensation by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 way of developed sites or partially in cash and partially in developed site under the new scheme formulated by the Government. A consent award came to be passed on 08.09.2014 in respect of the property in question, along with the other properties, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act 1894’ for short). As per the consent award, a sum of `60,00,000/- was awarded towards compensation for 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.45 out of total extent of 1 acre 20 guntas (acquired land) and a developed sital area measuring 7,187 square feet was allotted for the remaining 30 guntas. 4. The petitioners contended that they are entitled to be allotted developed sites for the entire 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.45 acquired. It is submitted that under the consent award dated 08.09.2014, similarly placed claimants were granted developed sites for the entire extent of land acquired by the BDA. On the ground of parity, the petitioners’ claim that they too be allotted developed sites for the entire extent of their land acquired. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 5. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yallappa Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others1 (Yallappa) and Narashimaiah Vs. The Commissioner, Benglauru Development Authority and Another2 (Narashimaiah), wherein it was held that the land owners cannot be compelled to receive cash compensation when they have sought allotment of developed sites. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-BDA submits that the petitioners having consented to the terms of the award, cannot now resile from the same. It is submitted that the petitioners had voluntarily opted 50:50 ratio, part cash compensation and part developed sites and hence cannot claim fully developed sites on the ground of parity. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 1 W.P.No.16919/2013 2 W.P.No.7818/2021 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 8. As per the consent award dated 08.09.2014, the petitioners were allotted compensation in the following manner: Sl. No. Particular In form Develo ped site sq.ft In form of cash ` xx Xxx Xxx Xxx 2 Sri Chikkamma w/o Narashimaiah expired. Her Legal heir represents her Husband Sri Narashimaiah is the Khatedhar as per RTC for 1 Acre 20 Guntas of land in Sy No.45 of Bheemanakuppe village. Compensation is as follows: a. Cash Compensation for 00-30 Guntas of land @ `80 (Eighty) lakh per acre. (Including Solatium, 12% Additional Value Malkies, Wells, Structures etc., as per Para 15 above] b. Developed sites for 00-30 Guntas of dry land @ the rate 9583 Sq. ft per acre. 7,187 Sq.ft. `60,00,000/- 9. It is evident that the petitioners consciously opted for compensation in the form of 50% developed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 sites and 50% cash. Having voluntarily consented to such terms, the petitioners now cannot contend that similarly placed claimants were granted developed sites for the entire land acquired. The award was passed based on mutual consent and once accepted, it cannot be reopened merely on the ground of parity. The reliance placed on Yallappa and Narashimaiah’s case is misplaced. In those cases landowners’ consent had not been obtained and the Court held that no landowners can be compelled to accept land in lieu of cash or vice versa. Whether to opt for cash compensation or land grant is a decision which is to be left to the concerned landowner. Admittedly in this case, the petitioners were given an option, and consciously opted for a combined compensation structure. 10 The petitioners’ contention that they have not given any consent as reflected in the consent award dated 08.09.2014 cannot be accepted. Having relied upon the same award to claim parity, they cannot now dispute its validity. The award being a consent award binds both - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41670 WP No. 25022 of 2025 parties, and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners is untenable. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and this Court pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17