- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. P PRABHAKARA REDDY SON OF G P PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.3, II MAIN, BEHIND STATE OF PATIALA, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI KALYANA NAGAR PO, BANGALORE - 560043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. LEELADHAR H P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560020. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560020. 3. P LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY SON OF G P PAPA REDDY, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CHIKKA BANASWADI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN WP No-14908/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No- 14908/2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID WP AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14908/2017. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners have filed the said writ petition before the learned Single Judge for quashing of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 endorsement bearing No.B.A.PRA.Vi.A,Bhu.Swa.AD/827/16-17 dated 16.03.2017. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.128 of Banaswadi Village which is an ancestral property. Under the partition, the petitioners' family got 16 guntas of land and this partition was affected way back in the year 1979. The subject land in Sy.No.128 of Banaswadi Village, along with other lands, were the subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings for which the Preliminary Notification dated 28.05.1984 and Final Notification dated 23.10.1986 were issued and award came to be passed on 24.06.1987. The possession of the said land was taken on 03.03.1988. The petitioners' father had challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.39308/1982 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 21.03.1988. However, the Bangalore Development Authority was directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of sites in relevant layouts formed out of the lands acquired belonging to the petitioners, in accordance with the allotment Rules giving preferential treatment to those whose lands have been acquired for the formation of layouts. It was also observed that as regards any construction erected by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 the petitioners on the lands now acquired, the BDA should not demolish till their representations were disposed of by the Screening Committee. The petitioners affected were given liberty to approach the Screening Committee for appropriate reliefs as regards the construction made by them over the land acquired. 4. W.A.No.697/1988 filed against the order passed in W.P.No.39308/1982 also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.05.1988. 5. The petitioners, who are the sons of late. G.P.Papareddy filed W.P.Nos.6028-6033/2004. The claim of the petitioners in these petitions was that the BDA should be directed to regularize the construction over the land acquired in Sy.No.128 of Banaswadi Village. 6. The learned Single Judge, having considered the facts that the land was acquired way back in 1987, for which the final notification was issued and the compensation was deposited and the possession was taken in 1988, held that there was no question of regularization as the Karnataka - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Rules, 1991 (for short, the Rules, 1991) providing for regularization came into force in the year 1991. The Rules, 1991 would not have any retrospective operation and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled for regularization. It was also held that the authority which rejected the application of the petitioners for regularization was justified in taking the said decision. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 05.03.2004 in W.P.Nos.6028- 6033/2004, the petitioners filed Writ Appeal Nos.2217- 2222/2004. The said writ appeals also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2004. After losing two rounds of litigation before this Court, the land stood acquired way back in the year 1988 and the possession was taken. The petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.4592/1990. The said suit was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1991, however, it was observed that the plaintiff/petitioner would be removed from the unauthorized occupation only in accordance with law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 8. It appears that despite so much having been gone by in the Court, it appears that one extremely competent and very honest Engineer of BDA prepared a survey report stating the land measuring 6 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.128 is covered by buildings and is developed as an urban area and the said Sy.No.128 is in center of the city. There is a road on the eastern side of the said survey number and a railway road over southern side. It was also stated that it would be difficult to identify the boundaries of the said survey number because of urbanization. On the basis of the said survey report, the petitioners made an application for regularizing their construction on the land. The said application has been rejected vide endorsement dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure-A) and it has been held that the earlier survey conducted by the Engineer was defective. The land was already vested in the Government way back in the year 1988 and there was no question of regularization of any unauthorized construction over the land in question. 9. It is not in dispute that several parcels of land including the land in survey No.128 got acquired way back in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 1988 in respect of the constructions raised by the petitioners, this Court has already held that there was no question of regularizing the unauthorized construction carried out on the land, which stood acquired way back in 1987-1988 under the regularization rules of 1991. The Engineer's report regarding urbanization of the land in Sy.No.128 and recommendation to regularize the construction has been withdrawn vide endorsement dated 16.03.2017 as the report was prepared for consideration other than legal. 10. Once it has already been settled by this Court that there was no question of regularizing the unauthorized construction carried out on the land acquired by the authorities way back in the year 1988, cannot be regularized, the said issue was not required to be reopened in the report submitted by one very competent and honest Engineer of BDA. We are of the considered view, that the said report was not bona fide act on the part of the Engineer, but it was an exercise in malice in law. Once the issue was settled, there was no question of submitting the report regarding the said land and therefore, we - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47870-DB WA No. 11 of 2025 do not find that the petitioners have any right to challenge the endorsement dated 16.03.2017. 11. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition holding that the endorsement dated 16.03.2017 is just and proper. We find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA