- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26597 WP No. 17351 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17351 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. B.G.RAMACHANDRA, S/O. LATE JANGAMA REDDY AND LAKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, NAVYA NIDHI APARTMENT, 4TH CROSS, CHIKKA BANASWADI, MS NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26597 WP No. 17351 of 2025 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38D OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 DATED 16- 05-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26597 WP No. 17351 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Praveen S., appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayer: "1. Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the Representation issued to the Respondent No.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section.38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 dated 16-05-2025 as per Annexure-'A'; 2. Direct by issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent not to disturb the possession of the Petitioner from the schedule property till the consideration of the Representation made on 25-03-2025 by the Petitioner; 3. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26597 WP No. 17351 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13640/2014 c/w W.P.No.29515/2019 dated 13.03.2023, wherein it has held as follows: "The land in question was subject matter of acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 3.11.1977 issued u/s 17(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 13.11.1980 issued u/s 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. This acquisition is put in challenge by the petitioners contending that the possession has not been taken over and that they have been residing in the structures constructed on the subject sites which are subsumed in the acquired land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also notifies to the court Sec.38D that is added to the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 granting reprieve to the class of persons into which her clients fit. 2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel oppose the petition contending that the petitioner in W.P.No.13640/2014 was before this Court earlier in W.P.No.2153/1991 that was dismissed on merits by a Coordinate Bench on 5.8.1997; his another case in W.P.No.29494/1997 was also dismissed as withdrawn on 23.10.1997. They further contend that the challenge in the companion case i.e., W.P.No.29515/2019 being highly belated, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay & laches, there being no plausible explanation for the same. Lastly, it is contended that both the petitioners having bought the land after the acquisition process began, lack locus standii to complain against the acquisition which has been accomplished decades ago and in accordance with law. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26597 WP No. 17351 of 2025 behalf of the respondent-BDA and therefore, declines indulgence so far as challenge to acquisition is concerned. Award came to be passed on 3.12.1982, possession was taken on 24.12.1982 by drawing a mahazar and Notification u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also came to be issued on 15.9.1983. 4. The above having been said, liberty needs to be granted to the petitioners although they are buyers of the subject land post acquisition Notification in view of the legislative intervention whereby section 38D came to be loaded to the Statute book granting certain reliefs to the land losers of the kind subject to certain parameters. Petitioners have produced certain photographs reflecting the existence of structures in their sites with power & water supply facilities. Though formally possession of the land has been taken over, so far as occupation of the subject structures is concerned, the version of the petitioners that they are continuing in occupation, merits acceptance. Learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in arguing that his clients are entitled to take the benefit of the amended provisions of Sec.38 of the 1976 Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation. In view of the above, Writ Petitions are disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek reprieve under the provisions of Section 38D of the 1976 Act within three months. If appropriate applications supported by evidentiary material are filed, the same shall be considered by the BDA in accordance with law and within an outer limit of one year keeping in mind that innocent buyers of lands even post acquisition Notification who have put up structures therein and continuing in occupation should not ordinarily be disturbed, consistent with the policy enacted in Section 38D of the 1976 Act. All contentions in this regard are kept open. It hardly needs to be stated that the petitioners’ possession of the subject structures shall not be disturbed till consideration happens and its result is conveyed to them. Costs made easy." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26597 WP No. 17351 of 2025 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115