- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30211-DB WP No. 37151 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 37151 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. G PRABHAVATHI, W/O. RAMACHANDRA RAO GAIKWAD, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 090. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHU H.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30211-DB WP No. 37151 of 2025 3. SHRI R. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, YASHAS NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, 7TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, MEI LAYOUT, BAGALGUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 073. 4. SMT. LATA KUMARI, W/O SHRI UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT RAMANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 6. SHRI V.R. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 7. SMT. RATNAMMA, D/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 8. SMT. SARASWATI, S/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 9. SHRI GOVINDARAJ, S/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30211-DB WP No. 37151 of 2025 SL.NO. 5 TO 9 ARE R/AT VEERASAGARA VILLAGE, ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI AND HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMALATHA V, AGA FOR R1 – STATE; SRI SHIVAPRASAD M SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – BDA; SRI OMKAR MURTHY G, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-5 TO R-8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT BDA TO RELEASE COMPENSATION UNDER THE SCHEME 40-60 RATIO IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER’S LAND DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE HEREIN WHICH WORKS OUT TO 16,051 SQ. FT. BY FIXING A TIMEFRAME TO RELEASE THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30211-DB WP No. 37151 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a. TO ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to direct the 2nd Respondent BDA to release compensation under the Scheme 40:60 ratio in respect of the Petitioner’s land described in the petition schedule herein, which works out to 16,051 sq. ft. by fixing a timeframe to release the compensation to the Petitioner; b) TO GRANT such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of this case including the cost in the interest of justice” 2. Sri Raghu H.R., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Hemalatha V., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Omkar Murthy G., learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of the lands measuring 2 acres 36 guntas in survey - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30211-DB WP No. 37151 of 2025 No.28/15 of Somashettihalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, which is the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of formation of Dr. K.Shivarama Karanth Layout. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred the subject petition on the score or rather an apprehension that he would not be getting the compensation in the ratio of 40:60 in respect to the petitioner's land as described in the schedule. 5. Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Bengaluru Development Authority would submit that there is no rationale behind the apprehension as all the land losers will be getting compensation in the same ratio that is given to others. If any grievance would arise in respect of the quantum of the compensation, the petitioner would naturally have a remedy before the reference Court for such adjudication of the compensation, seeking enhancement or otherwise. 6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the issue in the petition need not detain us for long for any determination other than the consideration of the compensation to the lands - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30211-DB WP No. 37151 of 2025 of the petitioner in the ratio of 40:60 as is done to every person. Any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation, the remedy is always open to the petitioner before the reference Court. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed. 8. There is an interim protection operating in the case at hand. Therefore, the interim protection would continue till the reference Court would consider the issue and dispose the claim of the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13