- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARASIMHAIAH, S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. SRI GALIANJANEYA B P, S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 4. SRI NARASIMHAIAH, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AND D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 6. SMT. HANUMAKKA, W/O SRI SHANKARAPPA AND D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 7. SMT. RAMAKKA ALIAS RAMYA, W/O SRI RAJANI AND D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 8. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O RAMANJANEYA AND D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 9. SRI B R SRIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 10. SMT. LATHA, W/O SRINIVAS AND D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 11. SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT HALE BYROHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 060. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI D R RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 4. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R-1; SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED 26/07/2023, BEARING NO. BDA/ALAO/211/2023-24 ISSUED/MADE BY THE R-4, ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BDA, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-M.ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of erstwhile owners of land bearing Sy.No.45/1C measuring 04 acres 19 guntas, situated at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, are before this Court seeking following reliefs: "Wherefore the Petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: (a) Issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the endorsement/order dated 26.07.2023, bearing No.BDA/ALAO/211/2023-24, issued/ made by the Respondent No.4, Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-M; (b) Issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to Survey 15 guntas of land namely petition Schedule Property and demarcate the same from remaining acquired larger extent of land and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of Petition Schedule Property which is left out of acquisition as per the Award, Amended Award and Award Notice, vide Annexure-D, E and F; AND (c) Grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 2. It is the case of the petitioners that aforesaid land in Sy.No.45/1C was sought to be acquired by the respondent-BDA for the purpose of formation of 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout', in terms of the Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008, in which, the name of Papaiah is shown as the owner of the land in Sy.No.45/1 and Sy.No.45/2. A representation was made by the petitioners to the Land Acquisition Officer, requesting the authority to exclude 20 guntas of land from the acquisition on the ground that there are houses built by them for their personal use and use of the family members. Consent award was passed on 15.09.2014. In that, an extent of 15 guntas of land belonging to Papaiah was excluded on consideration of the representation made by the petitioners regarding the said extent of land belonging to the petitioners as it consisted of dwelling houses. After passing the award on 15.09.2014, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued amended award on 18.05.2016, wherein, there is a specific reference to land in Sy.No.45/1C measuring 04 acres 19 guntas. Thus, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 case of petitioners is that they have been persistently following up the respondents-authorities to demarcate and exclude the said extent of 15 guntas of land which has been left out of acquisition as evidenced in the award proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the award dated 15.09.2014 produced at Annexure-D as well as the amended award produced at Annexure-E, more particularly, at page No.48 of the Writ Petition vehemently submits that the excluded portion of 15 guntas of land forms part of 04 acres 09 guntas forming part of Sy.No.45/1A1 and 45/1C. He submits that since the representation of the petitioners had not been considered, they had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.10434/2023 seeking direction to the respondents-authorities to consider their representation. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondents-authorities issued the endorsement dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 26.07.2023 constraining them to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to challenge the said endorsement. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed seeking quash of the said endorsement and for direction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the impugned endorsement dated 26.07.2023 produced at Annexure-M, submit that the endorsement in question has been issued without reference to the contents of the award and the representation made by the petitioners and without application of mind as the respondent-BDA in the impugned endorsement has informed that there is no provision for excluding the land once the award having been passed and there is also no provision for allotment of alternate site in lieu of the revenue sites. 5. Alternatively he further submits, since the respondents- authorities themselves have intimated in the impugned endorsement that the proposal to acquire the excluded land is under consideration and that as and when such acquisition notification is issued, the petitioners may - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 be reserved liberty to file further representation to seek exclusion of their land. 6. In response, the learned counsel for respondent-BDA reading through the award produced by the petitioners at Annexure-D points out that the land that was acquired was in Sy.No.45/1 and Sy.No.45/2, which originally measures 24 acres 33 guntas, of which, only 17 acres 39 guntas have been acquired. It is his specific submission that no portion of land in Sy.No.45/1C was notified. Further reading the said award, he points out that portion of 15 guntas of land which had been excluded on the premise of same consisted of residential houses fall within the area in Sy.No.45/1B. In this regard, he refers to a sketch showing the land being claimed by the petitioners in Sy.No.45/1C, produced along with the memo dated 25.3.2024. He further submits that the very premise on which 15 guntas of land was excluded from the award was the existence of residential houses which are shown in the extreme northern portion of the sketch produced along - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 with the aforesaid memo and that if the case of the petitioners is to be accepted that 15 guntas of land was excluded merely because they had put up constructions for the use of their family members, the said houses do not find place anywhere within the boundaries of Sy.No.45/1C as found at sketch produced along with the memo. Houses, if any, would form part of Sy.No.45/1B. He further submits that very premise on which the petitioners are claiming their rights over 15 guntas of land in Sy.N.45/1C is ill intended inasmuch as the petitioners appear to be intending to lay their claim on the land which is acquired, over which the lay-out has already been formed and over which no residential houses as claimed by the petitioners exists. He, however, fairly submits if according to the endorsement issued by respondent -BDA, respondent-BDA proposes to acquire even the excluded 15 guntas of land, the representation of the petitioners would be considered in respect of the area shown in Sy.No.45/1B of the sketch produced along with the memo. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. There is no dispute of the fact that land measuring 04 acres 19 guntas forming part of Sy.No. 45/1 and 45/2 purportedly belonging to the forefathers of the petitioners was acquired. The claim of the petitioners, however, is that the said land measuring 04 acres 19 guntas forms part of Sy.No.45/1A1 and Sy.No.45/1C, of which, 30 guntas is in Sy.No.45/1A1 and 03 acres 19 guntas is in Sy.No.45/1C. Though counsel for the petitioners repeatedly referred to the award produced at Annexure-D and the purported amended award at Annexure-E to point out that 15 guntas of excluded land forms part of Sy.No.45/1C, this Court is unable to accept the said contention. Necessary to refer to relevant portion of Annexure-D, which records the reasons for exclusion of 15 guntas of land which are as under: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 Tota l Exte nt Kharab Remaining Extent Assessm ent Area required Boundaries Name of the Kathadars/ Anubhavadars Sy. No Class A.G A. G A.G Rs.Ps. A.G Asses sment E W N S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45/ 1&2 Dry 24.33 0-10 24.23 25.52 17-39 25.52 44 51,63 38,69 46 Shivarudraiah my.ga Rudrappa, Ramanarasimhaiah S/o Kadarappa, Kadarappa S/o Gaalappa, Muniramiah S/o Gaalappa, Papaiah, R Rajashekar, N.Narayanarao, M.N Harinath, Gaalappa S/o Late. Thimmaiah, Lakshmamma W/o Ramaiah, Galappa S/o Late Gaalappa, Hanumaiah S/o Late Marulaiah, Muniramaiah S/o Gaalappa, Papaiah S/o Narasimhaiah, Shankarappa S/o Nagappa ಸೂಚೆ ೊಮಘಟ ಾಮದ ಸೆ ನಂ.45/ಎ & 2ರ ಒಟು 24 ಎಕೆ 33 ಗುಂೆ ಜೕ!ದು". ಈ ವ%& 17 ಎಕೆ 39 ಗುಂೆ ಜೕನನು' ಾಡದಲು ೆಂ*ೇೌಡ ಬ-ಾವ.ೆೆ ಭೂ0ಾ12ೕನವ3ಸಲು ಕಲಂ.17(1)ರಂ4ೆ *ಾರಂ5ಕ 6ಾಗೂ ಕಲಂ 19(1)ರಂ4ೆ ಅಂ8ಮ ಅ2ಸೂಚೆ 6ೊರ3ಸ9ಾ:;ೆ. ಉ=ದ 6 ಎಕೆ 34 ಗುಂೆ ಜೕನನು' ೆ>?ೆರ@ >ಂA ರ0ೆBೆ ಭೂ0ಾ12ೕನಪ3ಸಲು ಪ4ೆ%ೕಕಾ: ಅಂ8ಮ ಅ2ಸೂಚೆ 6ೊರ3ಸ9ಾ:;ೆ. FೆಂಗಳHರು ದIಣ 4ಾಲೂಕು, ೊಮಘಟ ಾಮದ ಸೆ ನಂ:45/1 & 2ರ 17 ಎಕೆ 39 ಗುಂೆ ಜೕ!ನ *ೈ& ಅಂ8ಮ ಅ2ಸೂಚೆ ನWೆಯಂ4ೆ 0-25 ಗುಂೆ ಜೕ!ನ ೆ[ನೂ% !ೇಶನಗಳ ಕಟಡಗ=ದು" ಅ5ವೃ^_ 6ೊಂ^ರುತB;ೆ. ಅದರಂ4ೆ *ಾ2ಾರದ [ಷಯ ಸಂ.300/2011, ^ಾಂಕ 20.12.2011ರ !ಣಯದಂ4ೆ ಈಾಗ9ೇ ೆ[ನೂ% !ೇಶನಗ=ೆ ಸಂಬಂ2bದಂ4ೆ !ೕ8!ಣಯ 4ೆೆದುೊಳcಲು ಸಾರೆd ಪತ ಬೆಯ9ಾ:ದು", ಸಾರ^ಂದ ಅಂ8ಮ !ಣಯೆd ಒಳವ3b eೕ ೆ.ಎf. ಚಂದgೇಖರಯ% ij 9ೇk ೆ.ಆm. eವರುದಯ% ರವರ 0-08 ಗುಂo, eೕ *ಾವಯ% ij 9ೇk ನರbಂಹಯ% ರವರ 0-15 ಗುಂೆ 6ಾಗೂ ಖಾಬು 0-02 ಗುಂೆ ಬಾಬು 0ೇ> ಒಟು 0-25 ಗುಂೆ ಜೕ!ನ ಬೆq ಕಾಟಕ ಘನ ಾ%rಾಲಯದ eೕಹನುಮಯ% ರವರು >k ಅs ನಂ.35548/2014ರಂ4ೆ ಕಂ;ಾಯ !ೇಶನವನು' iಡFೇೆಂದು ;ಾೆ ಸbದು". ಸದ> 0-25 ಗುಂo ಜೕನನು' 6ೊರತುಪ3b. 17 ಎಕರ 14 ಗುಂೆ ಖೕ!ೆ ಐ8ೕಪu ರvಸ9ಾ:;ೆ. ಸಾರದ ಅಂ8ಮ !ಣಯದಂ4ೆ ಸದ> 0-25 ಗುಂೆ [bBೕಣೆd ಕಮವwಸ9ಾಗುವuದು. Relevant also to refer to the portion of Annexure-E referring to Sy.Nos.45/1, 45/1A1 and 45/1C which is as under: Sl. No. Particular In form Developed Site Sq.Ft. In form of cash 3 Sri Papaiah S/o. Late Narasimhaiah is the Khatedhar as per RTC of land in Sy.No.45/1A1, 0-30 guntas and Sy.No.45/1C, 3 Acre 19 guntas Total 4 Acre 09 guntas, Revenue Sites formed 0-15 guntas therefore award is framed 3 Acre 34 guntas of Kommaghatta Village, Compensation is as follows; a. for value of 1 Acre 22 guntas of land @ 80,00,000/- (Eighty Lakhs) per acre. (Including Solatium, 12% Additional Value Malkies, Wells, structures etc.,) as per Para-15 above. b. Developed sites for 2 Acres 12 guntas of dry land @ the rate 9583 Sq.ft. per acre. 22,041 Sq.ft. 1,24,00,000/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 9. Perusal of aforesaid Award at Annexure- D do not refer to any extent of land in Sy.No.45/1C. It only refers to land in Sy.Nos.45/1 and 45/2 in which 15 guntas belonging to Papaiah, S/o Narasimhaiah has been excluded. Petitioners are claiming to be the legal representatives of said Papaiah. Similarly, though in the amended award at Annexure-C there is a reference of Sy.No.45/1C, as noted above, the extent of land in Sy.No.45/1C is shown as '03 acres 19 guntas'. Even the said amended award do not refer to whether 15 guntas of land which is stated to have been excluded, specifically forms part of Sy.No.45/1C. No other material document is produced by the petitioners in justification of their contention that the excluded land indeed forms part of Sy.No.45/1C. 10. Sketch produced along with the memo dated 25.03.2024 by the respondent-BDA, on the other hand, clearly depicts the existence of structures within the portion of Sy.No.45/1B and there appears to be no built up area or any structure existing within the area shown as Sy.No.45/1C. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 11. This Court had called upon the petitioners to file affidavit regarding the existence of the houses, if any, as claimed by them in the writ petition, specifically, with reference to the sketch produced by respondent-BDA. In response thereof, an affidavit sworn to by one Galianjaneya, who is petitioner No.2 in this petition is filed which is repetition of the petition averments. Certain photographs however are enclosed showing the existence of certain houses. Perusal of the entire affidavit do not indicate the petitioners showing the existence of the said 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.45/1C specifically with reference to the sketch that is produced by respondent- BDA along with the memo dated 25.03.2024 as referred above. Affidavit, therefore, is hardly of any assistance to the case of the petitioners. As already noted above, in the affidavit filed by the petitioners as directed by this Court there is neither any reference to such sketch nor there is any clarification as to where exactly 15 guntas of land. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that 15 guntas of excluded land forms part of Sy.No.45/1C is without any basis. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 11. Dispute essentially is with regard to identification of 15 guntas of excluded land with houses existing thereon. While the petitioners claim it to be in Sy.No.45/1C and respondent-BDA claims it to be in Sy.No.45/1B. Sketch produced by the respondent-BDA shows existence of houses/structures in Sy.No.45/1B. 12. Since the respondent-BDA in the document at Annexure-D has excluded the said 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.45/1 and 45/2 belonging to Papaiah S/o late Narasimhaiah, the respondent-BDA may specifically identify, demarcate and delineate the said excluded portion of land. Further as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the impugned endorsement, the respondent-BDA has informed the petitioners that even the extent of 15 guntas of land which was excluded is under consideration for acquisition, if and when such proceedings are undertaken and if the petitioners are able to establish that their houses as claimed in the petition are existing in the said excluded - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6934 WP No. 4343 of 2024 portion of 15 guntas of land, the respondent-BDA shall consider such representation in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6