- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. G. CHIKKABAYANNA (DIED) THROUGH LRS: 1. SRI. C. GOPAL S/O. LATE G. CHIKKABAYANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 2. SRI. C. RAMESH S/O. LATE G. CHIKKABAYANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SRI. C.G. VENUGOPAL S/O. LATE G. CHIKKABAYANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O NO.18, 1ST CROSS, IDBI LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, GOTTEGERE POST, BENGALURU-560 083. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.25894/2017, CONSEQUENTIALLY DECLARE THAT THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED FOR THE RELIEF ENVISAGED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 OF BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25894/2017. 2. The appellants/petitioners claim to be owners to an extent of 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.16/1 situated at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, which was purchased vide the sale deed dated 30.11.1967. 3. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a preliminary notification under Section 17(1)(3) of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short,’ BDA Act’) on 17.03.2001 seeking to acquire large extent of land including the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.16/1 mentioned herein above for "Further Extension of Anjanapura Layout". 4. The final notification was issued under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act on 04.03.2002 and the award notice was issued on 01.10.2003 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "LA Act, 1894") awarding a compensation of Rs.5,15,622/- for the land of the petitioners. As they did not take the compensation, the said compensation had been deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Court. The said land acquisition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 proceedings, came to be challenged by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4101-04/2013 before this Court. 5. This Court vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.4101-04/2013, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the final notification was issued way back on 04.03.2002 and immediately thereafter, an award was passed on 01.10.2003, the writ petition was filed more than a decade after the land acquisition proceedings were finalized. The petitioners' argument that they had not sought the compensation and they were in possession of land was negatived on the ground that mere ignorance pleaded would not constitute a sufficient reason to condone the laches of more than a decade and therefore, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches in making a challenge to the impugned land acquisition proceedings. 6. This Court also noticed that not only the land of the petitioners, but also several other parcels of the land got acquired for formation of the layout and challenge to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 the notification at the belated stage could not be accepted. If the petitioners were to contend that the possession of the land had to continue with the petitioners, that would be a different aspect which would not be looked into. However, it was observed that if the petitioner had any claim on the basis of their continuation over the land, they should make a claim in the appropriate proceedings. 7. Despite the said judgment and order, the petitioners have again filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25894/2017. The learned Single Judge, after extracting the relevant paragraph of the judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.4101-04/2013 has held that liberty granted by this Court to pursue any other remedy on the basis of the alleged possession over the land would not give rise to a fresh cause of action for the petitioners to repeat the same ground for non-utilization of the land and consequent lapsing of the scheme. 8. The learned Single Judge has also held that for the purpose of invoking Section 27 of the BDA Act, it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 would be necessary for the petitioners to aver that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent- authorities in implementing the scheme and that the scheme has not been implemented substantially. Learned Single Judge has held that there is not even a whisper in this regard in the grounds urged by the petitioners in the writ petition. 9. The learned Single Judge has also considered the affidavit filed on behalf of the BDA and documents produced and has been of the view that there is sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that the scheme has been implemented substantially, consisting of five blocks. Admittedly, the property belonging to the petitioners would form the part of block No.12. Merely on the basis of the statement made by the BDA that the plot was vacant would not construe that the entire scheme has lapsed. 10. In the affidavit filed by the BDA in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 04.04.2024, it has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 been specifically stated that the land in Sy.No.16/1 could be utilized for the formation of civic amenities, parks, and the formation of sites/apartments. 11. Having considered the submissions and the materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable for being barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata when the petitioners' earlier attempt to challenge the notification on the same very ground, was unsuccessful in the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.4101-04/2013, the same very ground would not be available for filing a fresh petition. In fact the writ petition cannot be maintained on any other ground challenging the very same notification. 12. We, therefore, concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and also hold that the second writ petition would be barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata. In view of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43358-DB WA No. 354 of 2025 aforesaid discussion we find no substance in this writ appeal and therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7