- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4883 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: NAGARAJA S. S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA H. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.6, 1ST CROSS, SHIVANANDA NAGAR MOODALAPALYA BENGALURU-560072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 MS. SHWETHA, ADVOCATE (APPEARED THROUGH VC) FOR SRI. SURAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.07.1982 VIDE ANNEXURE-M BEARING NO.A6 HR SLAO(S) 201/82-83 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 05.08.1986 VIDE ANNEXURE-P BEARING NO.HUD 206 MNX 86 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PROPERTY OWNED BY PETITIONER BEARING SITE NO.71 AND 72 EACH MEASURING EAST TO WEST 30 AND NORTH TO SOUTH 65 FEET IN ALL MEASURING 60 X 65 FEET CURVED OUT OF SY.NO.3 OF MALAGALA VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK HOLDING THE SAME HAS LAPSED. 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 has challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.A6 HR SLAO (S) 201/82-83 dated 15.07.1982 and the final notification bearing No.HUD 206 MNX 86 dated 05.08.1986 in so far they relates to site Nos. 71 and 72, each measuring 30 x 65 feet formed in Sy. No.3 of Malagala Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he purchased the aforesaid sites in terms of two sale deeds dated 06.12.2001 and 17.06.2002, which are formed in Sy. No.3 of Malagala Village. He contends that the aforesaid sites were assessed to property tax by the erstwhile Pattanagere City Municipality, Bengaluru and subsequently by the City Municipality, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru. He further contends that he has constructed a house thereon and that the house is provided with all civic amenities. (ii) He contends that the respondent No.2 interfered with his peaceful possession which compelled him to file O.S. No.2057/2007. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration that the preliminary and final notifications are null and void. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of an order dated 14.08.2014. The petitioner contends that on verification, he found that the State Government had issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act' for short) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 on 15.07.1982 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3 of Malagala Village for formation of Nagarbhavi layout, following which a final notification was issued on 16.08.1985. He contends that though several lands were notified for acquisition, Sy. No. 3 of Malagala Village was left out. Later another final notification was issued on 05.08.1986 by which, Sy. No.3 of Malagala Village was notified without mentioning the names of the owners of the property. (iii) The petitioner contends that the possession of the land in question is not taken as the entire land in Sy. No.3 of Malagala Village is developed and therefore the scheme for developing and formation of Nagarbhavi layout has lapsed. He also contends that respondent No.2 has not taken possession of the land in Sy. No.3 of Malagala Village and hence, the notifications have spent in itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated above contentions and prays that the reliefs sought in this petition be granted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the writ petition is filed after 33 years from the date of issuing the preliminary notification and 29 years from the date of issuance of the final notification. She contends that the petitioner purchased the sites in question long after the issuance of the notifications and hence has no locus standi to challenge the same. Besides this, she contends that the acquisition proceedings have attained finality, as the award is passed and compensation is already paid. She therefore submits that there is no merit in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the sites in question in terms of two sale deeds referred supra and these purchases are after the notifications were issued by the State Government. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the notifications which were issued prior to purchasing the sites in question. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 6. This apart, the challenge to the notifications is raised after nearly 33 years from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification and no explanation is forthcoming for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 7. However, it is relevant to note that Section 38D was inserted into the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 by Act No.27/2020 dated 10.07.2020, in terms of which, persons who are in possession of land belonging to the BDA for more than 12 years prior to Act No.27/2020 are entitled to seek regularization, subject however to the condition that the authority is satisfied that the land sought to be regularized cannot be utilized for the formation of a layout. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed off. Though the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, but he is entitled to file an application under Section 38D of the BDA Act before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for regularization of his occupation of the sites mentioned above. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29423 WP No. 4883 of 2015 9. If an application is filed by the petitioner within a month, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the application together with a copy of this order. Until such consideration, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. 10. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not avail this remedy, it will be open for the respondents to take necessary measures as provided in law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59