- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2023 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THE COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU- 560 020. 2. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI JACOB KANTARAJ @ KANICHKYA RAJU S/O (LATE) SRI. CHIKKAJOJAPPA @ JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT. NO.86, PRADISE, 5TH MAIN, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R-1; SRI SRIDHAR B.R, ADV., FOR SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.22732/2021 (LA-BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the notification for acquisition in respect of the subject property of the petitioner is quashed in respect of the schedule property is incorrect and unwarranted in the facts and circumstance of the case. It is submitted that even though the award had not been passed in respect of the property claimed by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that constructions have been found in the Sy.No.45 situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru utilizing 1.35 acres of land and that the layout has been substantially formed. 3. It is submitted that the scheme having been substantially implemented, the property of the petitioner could not have been left out of the notification since the Preliminary Notification is of the year 1977 and the Final Notification is of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 the year 1980. The learned counsel submits that in the light of Section 27 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'BDA Act'), abandonment and lapsing of a scheme can occur only in the specific situations provided and that in a case where the scheme has been substantially implemented, there can be no lapsing with respect to a specific property. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on a decision of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in The Bangalore Development Authority and Another v. The Principal Secretary and Others in W.A.No.4121/2017 dated 24.05.2022 to contend that even in a case where no award had been passed, this Court had directed passing of an award and payment of their compensation in almost similar circumstances. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that after the notification had been issued, there was a joint inspection conducted and that a decision had been taken not to take possession of the property of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.45 measuring 0.37 guntas (measuring 40,293 square feet which consist of three blocks as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 per sketch) out of 6 acre 5 guntas situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, on the finding that the property was already developed. It is submitted that no award was passed in respect of the property and possession was not taken in respect of the 37 guntas of the property in the petitioner's possession. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice from the judgment that the learned Single Judge had considered the materials on record and had found that the BDA had not taken any steps to complete the acquisition proceedings in respect to 0.37 guntas of property belonging to the writ petitioner in Sy.No.45. It was also an admitted case that no award had been passed by the appellants in respect of the petition schedule property nor possession of the petition schedule property had been taken by the BDA. The learned Single Judge as a matter of fact, recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, and referring to the file notings that there are constructions put up on the petition schedule property and that the BDA was, therefore, neither in a position to pass an award nor to take - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 possession of the petition schedule property till the date of judgment. 7. It is also an admitted fact that roads have been formed in 1 Acre 35 guntas of the property in Sy.No.45 without passing an award or paying any compensation. We notice that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant was rendered in a situation where an order was passed by the learned Single Judge without noticing the fact that the notification in question had been challenged on two prior occasions by the predecessor in interest of the very same writ petitioner. It was noticed by the Division Bench that the Preliminary notification issued on 21.03.1977 and Final Notification issued on 14.05.1980 had been challenged earlier by the father of the writ petitioner therein and that the filing of the writ petition suppressing the said fact itself was an abuse of process of Court. It was in the above circumstances, that it was found that the appellants are free to determine the compensation payable to the respondents and make the payment in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38206-DB WA No. 754 of 2023 8. In the instant case, it is an admitted case that possession was never taken by the appellants and that no award was passed in respect of the schedule property which measures 0.37 guntas in Sy No.45. In view of the submissions made before the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25