- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41703-DB WA No. 853 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BANGALORE-560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SHANAZ W/O SHOUKATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SMT. NARSAMMA W/O SHOUKATH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. SRI. ALLABAKASH S/O MOHAMMED MASOOD AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SMT. NAZEEMA W/O MOHAMMED SHAMMUN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41703-DB WA No. 853 of 2025 5. SRI. LIYAKATH KHAN S/O FAKRULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT SY.NO. 39/1 NAGADEVANHALLI VILLAGE, GNYNABHARTHI LAYOUT, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2023 PASSED IN WP No-3099/2016 (LA- BDA) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant [BDA] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.3099/2016 [LA-BDA], whereby the said petition was allowed. 2. Respondents had filed the said petition impugning the notification dated 19.01.1994, regarding acquisition of land to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41703-DB WA No. 853 of 2025 extent of 8 guntas falling in Survey No.39/1, situated in Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengiri Hobli, Bangalore-South Taluk [hereinafter referred to as 'subject land']. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA does not dispute that the notification for acquiring the land was quashed in terms of the order passed in another writ petition and the said order has attained finality. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. 4. We also note that there is an inordinate delay of 570 days in filing the appeal, which is also not sufficiently explained. There is no credible ground for condoning the said delay. 5. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed both on limitation as well as on merit. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20