- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47812 OF 2014 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. G. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE B.N.GOVINDA REDDY, R/A NO.908, "OM SRI RENUKA LAKSHMI KRUPA" 80 FT ROAD, BANASWADI, OMBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560043 SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1(a) SMT. MEENA N. REDDY W/O LATE G. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1(b) SRI. PRAVEEN N., S/O LATE G. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 1(c) SMT. SWATHI N., D/O LATE G. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ACCORDING TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ON 06.02.2023. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020 3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.11.1977 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 13.11.1980 HAS LAPSED VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND L RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/SALAO/03PR/301/77-78 dated 03.11.1977 and the final notification bearing No.HUD 85 MNJ 78 dated 13.11.1980 issued by respondent No.1. They have also sought a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the partial demolition of the building standing on the schedule property and to restrain the respondents from allotting the property to any third party. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that he purchased the schedule property in terms of a sale deed dated 11.07.2014 and was placed in possession thereof. He contends that a building was standing on the schedule property at the time of purchase. The petitioners further contend that respondent No.2 proposed to form a residential layout known as the 'Banaswadi scheme between old Madras road and Banaswadi road' and in that regard respondent No.1 issued a preliminary notification dated 03.11.1977 followed by a final notification issued under Section 19(1) of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act' for short) dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 13.11.1980. He contends that the land bearing Sy. No.244 of Banaswadi Village from which the schedule property was carved out, was included in the aforesaid acquisition proceedings. (ii) He contends that the officers of respondent Nos.2 and 3 forcibly entered the schedule property and partially demolished the structure standing thereon without issuing any prior notice. He contends that in similar circumstances, a Co- ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.16076-100/2010 and W.P. No.16101-106/2010 held that the scheme formulated by the respondents in respect of OMBR layout had lapsed and consequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had no authority to take possession of the lands covered under the said scheme. The petitioner has therefore challenged the impugned notifications on the ground that the scheme has lapsed and also on the ground that possession of the property was never taken pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and relied upon the following judgments: (i) Sri. Periyandavan and others Vs. The BDA and others - W.P.Nos.38306-308/2011; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 (ii) BDA and another Vs. Periyandavan and others - W.A.Nos.793-795/2013; (iii) S.K.Kulkarni and others Vs. V.N.Raghupathy and others - SLA (C) Nos.21300-21302/2015; (iv) The BDA Vs. N.Nagaraju and another - W.A.No.662/2012; (v) Ranjith Kumar and others Vs. Kiran Suri and others - SLA (C) No.10058/2023; (vi) BDA and another Vs. Srinivas Murthy and others - W.A.No.435/2017 connected with Commissioner BDA and another Vs. H.V.Nandakumar since dead by LR's and others - W.A.No.595/2016 4. The writ petition is opposed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, who contend that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable, as he purchased the property after the issuance of the notification by respondent No.1. They contend that the acquisition proceedings attained finality by issuing notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further contended that the scheme is implemented in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act, in as much as, out of 341 acres 7 guntas, possession of 252 acres 21 guntas was taken over and handed over to the Engineering - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 Section of the BDA for formation of the layout. It is stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 formed a layout over 214 acres and formed 1,854 intermediate sites and 243 corner sites. Therefore, it is contended that the scheme is implemented and the petitioner cannot assail the acquisition proceedings on the ground the scheme was not implemented. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the validity of the scheme was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1548/2014 where this Court held that the scheme was substantially implemented and had not lapsed. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in long and settled possession of the schedule property and that a suit filed by him in O.S. No.149/2015 was decreed granting perpetual injunction. He therefore prayed that the impugned notifications, be set at naught in so far as the petitioner is concerned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 7. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 8. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the petitioner purchased the schedule property in the year 2014, long after the acquisition proceedings had attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition, as what was purchased by him was a property that stood vested in the State Government. He also cannot contend that the scheme was not implemented, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran Vs. Administrative Officer - (2012) 12 SCC 133 and in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Manpreet Singh and others - AIR 2023 SC 454. 9. Now that the petitioner has obtained a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession, the legal representatives of petitioner may avail the benefit of regularisation of their occupation of the property belonging to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 38D of the BDA Act. Therefore, no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27913 WP No. 47812 of 2014 interference is warranted with the notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the BDA Act. 10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed off upholding the notifications issued by the State Government referred supra. However, liberty is reserved to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner to avail the benefit of Section 38D of the BDA Act. If a request is made, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5