- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 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. 2450 OF 2014 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S C P S ENTERPRISES NO.71, SURYA RESIDENCY, 6TH A CROSS, A.R. EXTENSION, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. BY ITS DIRECTOR, CHETAN NARAYANA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O LATE H.G. NARAYAN. 2. M/S S.P.C.S. TRADERS PVT. LTD., NO.65/14, GANGADHARA NILAYA, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN, BY ITS DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 SACHIN NARAYAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O LATE H.G. NARAYAN PIN:573 201. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R-3 TO R-5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.16418- 16419/2010 DATED 11/07/2014. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 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 intra-Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.16418-16419/2010 and other connected writ petitions. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was subject matter of challenge in several writ appeals and a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.1783/2014 and other connected writ appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The final directions issued by the Division Bench in paragraph 69 are extracted hereunder: "i) The above appeals filed by the BDA are allowed; ii) The order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions is set aside. The orders passed in writ petitions which are decided placing reliance on the order dated 11.7.2014 passed in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions are also set aside; iii) The preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/ COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009, Bangalore, dated 21.5.2008 and the final notification bearing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 No.UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore, dated 18.2.2010 issued for acquisition of lands for the formation of the “Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout” are upheld subject to the following conditions: a) With regard to the land owners (excluding the site owners): i) All the land owners/writ petitioners who are seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition on the ground that their lands are (1) nursery lands; (2) situated within green belt; (3) totally built up; (4) that the buildings are constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions; (5) that similar adjoining lands have been either left out from acquisition or de-notified, are permitted to make an application to the BDA seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition by producing all such material that they deem fit/necessary in support of their applications within 3 months from today; (ii) The BDA shall consider each of the said application/s keeping in mind the status of the lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and without taking into consideration any developments / improvements / constructions made subsequent to the preliminary notification; iii) The BDA shall complete the exercise of considering the applications of the writ petitioners and deciding on the same within an outer limit of six months from today; iv) The BDA, upon consideration of the applications shall intimate the writ petitioners about its decision; v) If the BDA is of the opinion that the acquisition will have to be proceeded with, the BDA is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law; b) Insofar as the site owners who have not made an application as contemplated in para (iii)(a) hereinabove: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 i) They shall register themselves for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months from today by paying the registration fee. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. The necessary documents along with the said applications are also to be filed to enable the BDA to verify the same; ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as being entitled for priority allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30x40 feet in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the prevailing allotment prices subject to the applicants satisfying the dual requirements of allotment under the Rules that they must be the residents of Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be owning any residential property in Bengaluru; iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements for allotment under the Rules, 1984 they may be considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989; c) Insofar as the owners of residential sites who form part of a layout and who have sought for dropping their lands from acquisition in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the BDA shall consider the same having regard to the observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the BDA rejects their applications, the site owners who have first filed applications pursuant to para (iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further period of one month after the decision as contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and apply in the manner as contemplated in para (iii)(b) hereinabove. iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 v) In view of the allowing of the above appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs." 2. The petitioners/respondents herein got this appeal separated on the ground that the facts of the petitioners' case are different than the other petitions. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are stated as under: The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA') had issued Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the BDA Act') for acquisition of land totally measuring 4814 acres 15 guntas for the public purpose of formation of a layout called 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout' i.e., for development of housing complex to the residents. 4. The notices under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act were issued and after hearing the notified khatedars/land owners and considering their objections and the feasibility report as well as the spot inspection report, the BDA recommended to acquire an extent of 4043 acres 27 guntas of land and sent the proposal to the State Government. The State - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 Government had accorded its sanction vide Government Order dated 16.02.2010 under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act for acquisition of 4043 acres 27 guntas of land. The final notification came to be issued under Section 19 of the BDA Act on 18.02.2010. 5. Several writ petitions came to be filed by the owners/persons claiming interest through them questioning the acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA in respect of 4043 acres 27 guntas of land for the 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout'. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2014, passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and other several connected writ petitions, quashed the notifications issued by the BDA. The said judgment was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Appeal No.1783/2014 and connected writ appeals. 6. It is contended that the petitioners have acquired the said land in a public auction conducted under Rule 12(2) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The Government issued the notification dated 16.06.2007 for conducting the public auction of the Government land measuring 3 acres 14 guntas in Block No.2 of Survey No.97 of Kannalli Village. The petitioners participated in the auction proceedings. The Government had also issued another notification on the same day for auctioning 12 acres 18 guntas of land in Survey No.8 of the said village. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 The petitioners had participated in the auction proceedings, and the petitioners bid for an amount of Rs.6,67,00,000/- was accepted and the petitioners had deposited 25% of the bid amount on 30.06.2007. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, had issued a letter to the petitioners on 31.07.2007 stating therein that the State Government had approved the auction sale in favour of petitioner No.1 subject to the outcome of the public interest litigation in W.P.No.7298/2007 and directed the payment of balance amount of Rs.4 crores 97 lakhs being 75% of the bid amount. A similar notice was issued to the second petitioner. 8. While the sale certificate was still to be issued in favour of the petitioners, the notification was issued by the State Government on 21.05.2008 under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act proposing to acquire 4814 acres 15 guntas of land as mentioned above including the land in Survey No.8 and Survey No. 97 for which the public auction was held and the petitioners were successful. The petitioners took a stand that as the notification had been issued and the amount was already paid, they would not be paying 75% of the bid amount and the forfeiture of 25% of the initial amount paid by the petitioners would be unjustified and they asked for refund. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 9. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition is relevant which is extracted hereunder: "7. Upon seeing the notification, the petitioners approached the second respondent contending that since the lands sold in public auction is also notified for acquisition, the demand for payment of balance of auction amount and further threat that if the balance of 75% of the bid amount is not paid, 25% of the amount already paid would be forfeited is unreasonable and therefore the petitioners would not pay the balance of the amount but also demanded that the amount already paid should be refunded. The second respondent assured the petitioners that necessary steps will be taken for deleting the Sy.No.8 and Sy.No.97 from the notification and therefore the petitioners may pay the balance of the bid amount. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Bangalore District wrote a letter on 31.05.2008 to the second respondent requesting the second respondent to withdraw from acquisition lands in Sy.Nos.8, 93, 94 and 97 of Kannalli Village. Copy of the same is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-J." 10. On the one hand, the petitioners did not pay 75% of the balance sale consideration in respect of auction sale in which they participated and on the other hand, they filed their objection to the notification on 18.06.2008. It appears that thereafter, the petitioners had paid the balance 75% of the amount on 27.06.2009 and an endorsement was issued in their favour. The Competent Authority had rejected their - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 objection regarding the acquisition of their land by the aforesaid notification. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioners would not have a higher status than the other owners of the land, whose land stood acquired for the purpose of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. It is further submitted that the sale certificate dated 30.07.2008 was issued in favour of the petitioners after the preliminary notification for acquiring the land was issued on 21.05.2008. Neither the BDA Act nor the Land Acquisition Act provide that a land purchased by a person in public auction should not be acquired. When the petitioners themselves demanded the 25% which they deposited, it would not lie in their mouth to contend that their land should not be acquired. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Harnahalli, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has forcefully submitted that the petitioners were on higher pedestal than other owners of the land inasmuch as the petitioners had acquired the right in a public auction conducted by the Government itself. If the Government was intending to acquire the said land for the purpose of 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout', the Government ought not to have conducted the public auction for sale of the land to which the petitioners had participated and were found - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 successful bidders. In sum and substance, the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that the petitioners had the legitimate expectation of not acquiring the said land as the said land was part of a public auction. 13. The next submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the acquisition of the land after the land having been part of a public auction is a colourable exercise of the powers vested in the authorities and it is in fact a malice in law. 14. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on two judgments namely, (i) THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs GURDIAL SINGH AND OTHERS (AIR 1980 SC 319) and (ii) STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS VS BRAHMPUTRA METALLICS LIMITED, RANCHI ([2023]10 SCC 634) to submit that if an authority exercises the power in a colourable manner that is, the power is vested for one purpose but it is exercised for another purpose, it would vitiate the decision of the competent authority. 15. 15. We have considered the submissions. 16. It is not in dispute that the very same notifications were challenged in number of writ petitions and the learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order, had set aside the notifications. However, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 Division Bench, by the judgment and order dated 02.02.2024, has set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeals filed by the BDA. 17. The question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the petitioners' case is different than other owners of the land whose land stood acquired by the one and the same notifications? 18. The petitioners, after paying the consideration in the auction proceedings, could have become the owners of the land. A person who acquires the land in public auction cannot be said to be on higher pedestal than the other owners of the land who might have acquired the land by private sale or by inheritance etc. There cannot be any difference between such an acquisition and the owner who acquired the land through public auction. 19. The notifications for acquiring the lands including the petitioners' land were for public purpose i.e., for forming 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout'. The petitioners' land is also contiguous land to other lands and therefore, it cannot be said that including the petitioners' land in the acquisition proceedings would be a colourable exercise by the authority or the State Government. In fact, we are of the view that if the petitioners' land would have been excluded from the acquisition proceedings, it would have been an exercise bad in law. But, when the other contiguous - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43463-DB WA No. 2450 of 2014 lands have been acquired, the mere fact that the petitioners had acquired the land through public auction, the acquisition of their land would not be bad in law as the petitioners cannot be said to have a better title than the owners of the land whose lands got acquired. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/respondents herein. 20. The issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.1783/2014 and connected appeals. Therefore, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the aforesaid judgment 22.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.1783/2014 and other connected writ appeals. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1