- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3004 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI V. SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGRICULTURE, R/O HOSAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI KIRAN C.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER BEARING SY.NO.1/1A OF HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 1 ACRE 9 GUNTAS UNDER THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.11.2002 i.e. ANNEXURE-E AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 09.09.2003 i.e. ANNEXURE-F, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE FORMATION OF BANASHANKARI 6TH PHASE FURTHER EXTENSION HAS LAPSED AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BDA ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner seeks to declare that the acquisition of his land bearing Survey No.1/1A of Hosahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 01 acre 09 guntas (‘schedule property’) under the preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 (Annexure-E) and final notification dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.1 proposed for the formation of Banashankari VI phase (further extension) has lapsed as contemplated under Section 27 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 Brief facts: 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the schedule property. It is stated that the schedule property has been converted for residential use, formed part of the gramathana due to the natural village expansion, with existing houses, roads, and civic amenities well before the initiation of any acquisition proceedings. The schedule property was assessed for tax by the local Panchayath and later, by BBMP after its merger in 2007, confirming it as an established residential property. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 under Section 17 (1) of the BDA Act, proposing to acquire 1,532 acres of land for the formation of Banashankari VI Phase Layout (further extension), followed by a final notification dated 09.09.2003, reducing the extent to 750 acres. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 3. The petitioner filed objections, pointing out that the land was already built up and surrounded by de-notified lands. It is stated that joint inspections were conducted in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2012 by the BDA officials, confirming that the houses existed and the layout formation was impossible. It is stated that the BDA itself proposed de-notification to the Government on 29.06.2006, admitting no possession had been taken and no notification under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) had been issued. 4. In W.P. No.19277/2007 filed by the petitioner, this Court on 02.09.2009 directed the Government to decide on the proposal of the BDA for de-notification. Further, similarly situated adjacent land owners, i.e., Survey Nos.8/8B and 8/9 had filed W.P. No.19425/2007, which was also acquired under the same notification for formation of further extension of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 Banashakari VI phase layout. The said writ petition came to be allowed directing the Government to pass necessary orders relating to de-notification. Further, the Government vide order dated 10.06.2010 issued a notification under Section 48 (1) of the LA Act, de- notifying the land in Survey Nos.8/8B, 8/9 (P) and 10/2 (P) of Hosahalli Village in pursuance of the direction of this Court in W.P. No.19425/2007. It is stated that while the petitioner's lands are ignored for de- notification, the present petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. 5. Respondent-BDA has filed objections contending that the schedule property was lawfully acquired for formation of Banashankari VI stage (further extension) under preliminary notification followed by final notification, pursuant to which an award was passed and duly approved. The possession was taken on 12.08.2004 and handed over to the BDA’s Engineering - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 Section and the same was published under Section 16 (2) by issuing notification in the Karnataka Gazette on 28.06.2007. It is stated that the petitioner's request for de-notification was considered by the De-Notification Committee chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary, and rejected on 17.12.2008 as possession had already been taken. Following the rejection, the BDA claims to have developed the land forming a connecting road and sites adjacent to BDA's existing layout. It is stated that the schedule property is abutting its existing layout and a road has been formed connecting Survey No.1/1A (P) and the land therefore vests absolutely in the BDA free from encumbrances and cannot be de-notified, once the possession has been taken. It is stated that the claim of lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act is denied, as the scheme has been substantially implemented. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, as the scheme was never implemented within five years from the final notification dated 09.09.2003. It is stated that no sites were formed, and that the land continues to remain residential with existing structures. It is further contended that there is a lapse under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act, 2013’ for short), as no compensation was paid, and no physical possession was taken by the BDA. The alleged possession mahazar dated 12.08.2004 is fabricated cyclostyled document, not signed by the owner and made by an unauthorised officer. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 8. Learned counsel contends that the similarly placed landowners were granted de-notification, while the petitioner's case was arbitrarily rejected without justification and a classic instance of ‘pick and choose’, which has been condemned in V.A. Narasimha Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and others1 (B.A. Narasimha Reddy). The discrimination by the authority is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner's constitutional right to property has been infringed by arbitrary inaction and continued threat of dispossession despite full residential use and is violative of the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the order in W.P. No.19277/2007 directing the State Government to consider de-notification was ignored and amounting to defiance of the judicial orders. Further, under clause 44.13.2 (3) of the Revised Master Plan 2015, areas within 250 meters of the Gramathana are 1 ILR 2012 KAR 3571 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 exempted from acquisition and the petitioner's land squarely falls within this exemption. It is contended that the alleged, ‘road formation’, was an existing Panchayath road later maintained by BBMP, and was not laid by the BDA. The BDA has produced no proof of layout approval or formation in the petitioner's property. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the award was passed on 12.12.2003 approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 12.01.2004 and possession was taken on 12.08.2004, vested absolutely with the BDA. The de-notification committee by order dated 17.12.2008 rejected the petitioner's request since possession had already been taken and the land had vested in the BDA. Learned counsel contends that the scheme was substantially implemented and land forms part of the developed Banashankari VI stage layout, with roads connecting to adjoining BDA lands. It is submitted that once the land - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 vested with the BDA is free from encumbrances, it cannot be de-notified under Section 48 of the LA Act. It is contended that the petitioner unauthorisedly constructed a compound wall and continues to occupy the acquired land for personal gain. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under preliminary notification dated 17.11.2002 and final notification dated 09.09.2003 have lapsed in respect of the petitioner's land under Section 27 of the BDA Act, 1976 for non- implementation of the scheme? 11. Petitioner had filed W.P. No.19277/2007, praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the proposal dated 29.06.2006, submitted by the BDA for de-notification of the petitioner's land. In the said proposal, the BDA had categorically admitted, during the joint inspection - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 conducted on 30.09.2004, it was reported that it was not possible to form a layout in the petitioner's land, as the area was surrounded by the ex-serviceman House Building Cooperative Society layout and land reserved for burial ground, among other constraints. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, directing the respondents to take action in terms of the report submitted by the BDA and to pass appropriate orders. 12. Likewise, another W.P. No.19425/2007, filed by the adjoining owners whose properties were also acquired under the same notification for formation of Bansankari VI phase layout, was allowed on identical grounds, directing the Government to consider and pass necessary orders for de-notification. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No.19277/2007, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government seeking de-notification of his land. In compliance with the direction issued in W.P. No.19425/2007, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 Government subsequently issued a notification under Section 48 (1) of the LA Act, de-notifying the lands bearing Survey Nos.8/8B, 8/9 (P), and 10/2 (P) of Hosahalli Village, in pursuance of the direction obtained by the adjacent landowners. Thus, the sequence of events clearly demonstrate that the BDA itself had admitted in official communications that the petitioner's land was built up, surrounded by residential developments, and not suitable for layout formation, and that the State Government had accepted identical findings in respect of the adjoining lands by issuing a formal de-notification order. Despite the common factual basis and identical recommendations made by the BDA, the petitioner's land alone was excluded from the de- notification process, while the adjacent survey numbers were released from acquisition. The respondents have not assigned any rational basis or objective criteria for such selective exclusion. The principle of equality in treatment of similarly placed landowners is well settled. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 In V.A. Narasimha Reddy’s case stated supra, this Court, while dealing with the very same preliminary and final notification issued for Banashankari VI Stage (further extension), held that the BDA and the State Government had adopted a ‘pick and choose policy’, releasing certain lands arbitrarily and retaining others without uniform criteria, thereby committing a fraud on power. The said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.3382-3384/2012 and connected matters and the Special Leave petition filed by the BDA was dismissed by the Apex Court on 19.12.2024, thereby confirming the finding that such discriminatory acquisition actions are unsustainable. 13. The ratio laid down in Hari Ram and another Vs. State of Haryana and others2 (Hari Ram) also applies squarely, wherein the Apex Court held that the State cannot arbitrarily exercise its power under 2 (2010) 3 SCC 621 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 Section 48 of the LA Act by releasing certain lands and denying the same relief to other landowners who are similarly situated, as such, an action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. The present case discloses an identical pattern; the petitioner's land is similarly placed to those in Survey Nos.8/8B, 8/9, and 10/2, which were de- notified. Yet the respondents have unjustifiably refused to extend the same relief. The selective retention of the petitioner's land, despite earlier Court's direction and BDA’s own admission of its unsuitability for layout formation constitutes hostile discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power. 15. For the following reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44029 WP No. 3004 of 2016 ii. The impugned preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 (Annexure-E) and final notification dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.1 have lapsed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46