- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38570-DB WA No. 1740 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1740 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE - 560 020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE SRI CHANNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.09, VBT LAYOUT ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38570-DB WA No. 1740 of 2024 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, AGA FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.47017/2014 (LA-BDA) TO THE EXTENT OF AWARD OF INTEREST AND GRANTING LIBERTY & 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 JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2024, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38570-DB WA No. 1740 of 2024 2. The Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.47017/2014 (LA- BDA). The respondents have filed the said petition challenging the preliminary notification dated 11.02.1988 and the final notification dated 28.07.1990 for acquisition of the subject land. 3. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of land measuring eight guntas of land, including one gunta of Kharab land in Survey No.97/15 and eight guntas of land in Survey No.97/16 of Arakere village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is the petitioner's case that neither the possession of the subject land was taken over, nor any award was passed. And, thus the acquisition of the subject land was lapsed. The petitioner also pointed out that the subject land was acquired for the purpose of formation of BTM Layout, 6th Stage and this Court having heard the writ petitions challenging the said acquisition, disposed of the same by declaring that the acquisition of the land was abandoned by BDA and consequently lapsed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38570-DB WA No. 1740 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the petition ought not to have been entertained as it was filed after a delay of almost 24 years. 5. It is material to note that the cause of action to file a writ petition, is the inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in taking any further steps for taking over the subject land. 6. Thus, we are not persuaded to accept that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, only on the ground that the writ petition was filed after the period of 24 years after the final notification was published. Concededly, the appellants have neither taken any steps for passing an award nor has taken over possession of the subject land. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also fairly states that the award was required to be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the final notification and the said award can be passed even at this stage. He also does not dispute that the similar petitions challenging the same notification , that is, forming the BTM Layout, 6th Stage had been disposed of with the observation that the acquisition of the lands for the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38570-DB WA No. 1740 of 2024 purpose had been abandoned by the appellants. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29