- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2691 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HUCHAIAH S/O LATE MARI HEGGADE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 DEAD BY LRS 1(a) SMT. CHIKKAMADDAMMA W/O LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 1(b) DR. DURGESH B.H. S/O LATE HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O ROOM NO.21 (NOW ROOM NO.2204) 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.24, COLLEGE OF APPLIED MEDICAL SCIENCES, KING SAUD UNIVERSITY, PB NO.10219, RIYADH-11433, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA. PERMANENT R/AT NO.30, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 SHAKAMBARI NAGAR J.P.NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560020 2. THE SECRETARY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560020 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 5. THE SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560009 7. SRI D. MUNIYAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NO.Y 155, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6; VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 i.e. PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 17.11.1998 NO.BDA/SLAO/A4 PR/257/88-89 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 22.07.1991, NO.HUD 553 MNX 90 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PERTAINING TO THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PART OF THE SURVEY NO.91 OF ALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA GROUP PANCHAYAT, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK IS LAPSED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner (since deceased represented by his legal representatives) has challenged a preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A4 PR/257/88-89 dated 17.11.1988 and final notification bearing No.HUD 553 MNX 90 dated 22.07.1991, issued by respondent No.1. He has also sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 not to interfere with his possession in the property bearing gramathana V.P. Khata - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 No.140, Khata property No.136-165/37, Junjar No.698, House No.1256, situated at Alahalli, Anjanapura Group Panchayat, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West - 40 feet and North to South - 60 feet. 2. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid property belonged to one Mr. R. Ramesh Babu, who sold it to one Mr. Venkatakrishna in terms of a sale deed dated 03.10.1996. Later, the said Mr. Venkatakrishna sold the property to Kumari S. Saritha and Kumari S. Rupa, represented by their father in terms of a sale deed dated 15.12.1997. The petitioner purchased the aforesaid property from Kumari S. Saritha and Kumari S. Rupa on 28.03.2008. He claimed that khata of the aforesaid property was transferred to his name in the records of Gram Panchayat, Doddakallasandra. He claimed that he constructed a house on the aforesaid property, which was serviced with electricity on 18.05.2001. He contends that the respondent No.1 with the assistance of its subordinates attempted to interfere with his possession. He later came to know that similar interference was made with the possession of his vendors and that they had filed a suit in O.S.No.4886/2000 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 for perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 17.03.2008 and the same was challenged by the respondent No.1 in R.F.A.No.875/2009, which was disposed off reserving liberty to the respondent No.1 to recover possession of the property in accordance with law. The petitioner contends that he, as an assignee challenged the judgment passed by this Court in R.F.A. No.875/2009 before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.18988/2015, which was disposed off on 26.10.2015, reserving liberty to the respondent No.1 to recover possession of the property in question through due process of law. The petitioner contends that the possession of the aforesaid property is not taken till date and therefore, the acquisition in so far as aforesaid property is concerned has lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the preliminary notification and the final notification and has also sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to 6 not to interfere with his possession. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 4. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in this petition. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the notifications as his purchase was subsequent to the preliminary notification. It is also contended that an award was passed and the same was approved on 06.06.1997 and the award amount is deposited before the Civil Court on 10.11.1999 under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and possession of the property was taken over on 29.07.1998 and handed over to the Engineering section for formation of layout. It is also contended that notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 01.06.1998 and hence, the land has vested in the State Government. Therefore, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner that the possession of the property in question is not taken, is without any basis. It is also contended that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 reference Court in LAC No.289/1999 has determined the compensation payable to the claimants and that the petitioner is not one of the claimants before the reference Court. Further more, it is contended that the acquisition of the land is not under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but it is under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Hence, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the possession of the property is already taken over and if the petitioner (since deceased represented by his legal representatives) is in possession, as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.18988/2015, the possession of the property in question will be taken in accordance with law. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 8. The fact that the petitioner was a purchaser of the property subsequent to preliminary notification and the final notification, is not in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the legality or validity of the preliminary notification and the final notification acquiring the property in question for the purpose of formation of J.P. Nagar, 9th Stage. The records enclosed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 along with the statement of objections indicate that the possession of the property in question was taken and the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also notified. The compensation determined was referred for apportionment under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner has admittedly not made any claim before the reference Court claiming compensation. 9. Be that as it may, the predecessor in title of the petitioner had filed O.S.No.4886/2000 against the respondents in respect of very same property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition and the said suit was decreed ex-parte and respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession of the predecessor in title of the petitioner. Though - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 this was challenged by the respondent No.1 before this Court in R.F.A.No.875/2009, the appeal was disposed off reserving liberty to the respondent No.1 to recover possession in the manner known to law. The same stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.18988/2015 filed by the petitioner herein challenging the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.875/2009. Therefore, as the matter now stands, the Courts have also acknowledged the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property. However, none of the Courts have commented as to how and when the petitioner came in actual possession of the property. Since the possession of the petitioner is already protected by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order passed in SLP (CC) No.18988/2015, nothing more than what is granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court could be granted in this writ petition. In that view of the matter, challenge to the notifications issued by the State Government cannot be assailed at the instance of the petitioner. Consequently, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, in view of a direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.18988/2015, the respondents shall recover the possession - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27694 WP No. 2691 of 2016 of the property in question in accordance with law. It is open for the legal representatives of the petitioner to take benefit of Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69