- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22783 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI.CHAMPALAL.S BHANDARI S/O LATE SRI. BHIMARAJ BHANDARI REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. SAPANGADIYA S/O K. SAMPATHARAJ GADIYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.89, 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-41 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-20 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-20 4. SUMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 1303, 20TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 018. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 06.02.2022 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 [AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2022] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA DIWAKAR.,AGA FOR R1; SRI.B S SACHIN., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.MADHU R., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESUTLED IN PASSING IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANN-A DATED 16.5.2015 PASSED BY R-3 AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANN-A DATED 16.5.2015 PASSED BY R-3 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question an endorsement bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/«¨sÀƸÁéC/J5/¦.Dgï/LAC191/15-16 dated 16.05.2015 issued by respondent No.3 and to declare that the acquisition of the properties mentioned in the schedule has lapsed by virtue of Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 2013') and Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as ' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 the BDA Act'). Alternatively, the petitioner has sought for quashing the preliminary notification bearing No.¨ÉA.C.¥Áæ/«.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.D/K4-¦.Dgï:194/2002-03 dated 07.11.2002 issued by the respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No.£ÀDE:750:¨ÉA¨sÀƸÁé:2003 dated 09.09.2003 issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of the property described in the schedule and to declare the inclusion of the properties of the petitioner in the scheme of development as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to declare that any allotments made is illegal and contrary to the orders passed. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he owned land in Sy.No.7/8, measuring 4 acres of Manavarthekaval Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and 65/2, measuring 4 acres 05 guntas of Thalaghattapura Village, he having purchased it in terms of four sale deeds dated 07.12.1994, 07.12.1994, 12.12.1994 and 17.12.1994. He contends that the aforesaid properties were converted for non-agricultural residential use in terms of an official memorandum issued by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 the Deputy Commissioner dated 01.09.2001 and 16.10.2001 respectively. (ii) He also contends that the aforesaid lands were proposed for a group housing project and that a joint development agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the developer on 03.08.2002. The developer, in whose favour a general power of attorney was given, enclosed the property by a compound. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 unmindful of the fact that the land was converted for residential purposes, proposed the acquisition of the aforesaid land for formation of Banashankari, VI Stage and issued a notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act. The petitioner filed his objections on 16.12.2002 bringing to the notice of the respondent No.2 that the land was already converted for non-agricultural purposes and therefore requested to drop the acquisition. However, the respondent No.3 without considering the objections proceeded to reject it following which, a notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act was issued. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 (iii) The petitioner challenged the acquisition before this Court in W.P.No.136-137/2004, which was disposed of along with a batch of writ petitions where a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that: "All the petitioners who are landowners/converted site owners (duly converted for non-agricultural use in accordance with law), who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are concerned, on the ground that a) their lands are situated within green belt area b) they are totally built up c) converted for non-agricultural use (d) garden and recognized nursery lands (e) who have built hospitals, educational institutions and factories (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order." (iv) It was also held that: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 "It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the landowners whose objections were upheld and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued." (v) The petitioner contends that following the above, he approached the respondents on 21.07.2006 and requested the respondents to de-notify and delete the aforesaid lands from acquisition. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that there are no lands in and around the land of the petitioner that were acquired and therefore, it was not feasible to acquire the land of the petitioner. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that several extents of land were de-notified from acquisition on the ground that they were converted for non- agricultural residential purposes. (vi) The respondent No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner vide its order dated 25.06.2007. This was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.13597/2007. The writ petition was thereafter allowed in terms of an order dated 05.02.2010, directing the respondents to reconsider the representation in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shamanna and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others - W.A.No.1164/2006 (referred supra). The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a fresh representation. Following the directive issued by this Court, a fresh representation was filed by the petitioner on 05.04.2010. The respondent No.2 did not take any decision on the representation, which forced the petitioner to file further representations dated 04.05.2010, 16.04.2012, 03.09.2012, 27.11.2012. (vii) The petitioner contends that another representation was thereafter filed on 19.09.2013, which too did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.46776/2013 seeking for a direction to the respondents to de-notify and delete the schedule properties from the acquisition and also to cancel the allotments made contrary to the order passed by this Court. The writ petition was thereafter allowed in terms of an order dated 04.08.2014 in terms of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 which, the respondent No.3 was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent No.2 has now considered the said representation and has issued an endorsement dated 16.12.2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the request for exclusion of the land from acquisition did not lie within any of the guidelines prescribed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shamanna's case (referred supra) and that layout is already formed in the land in question and that allotments of sites were already made. 3. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shamanna's case had specifically directed that those lands which are converted prior to the preliminary notification are eligible to be excluded from acquisition and therefore, allowed land losers to file representation seeking exclusion of their land on any ground permitted and respondent No.2, was directed to consider the representation in accordance with law and after taking into - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 consideration the status of the land prior to the preliminary notification. (ii) He contends that since the lands in question were converted prior to preliminary notification, the respondent No.2 instead of applying the law as declared by this Court has gone astray in holding that the layout is formed by the respondent No.2 and sites are allotted therein. He contends that the judgment of this Court in Shamanna was questioned in W.A.No.1165/2006, and the same was also challenged in W.A.No.1080/2006. He contends that the Division Bench while considering W.A.No.1080/2006, noticed that a large extent of land was excluded from acquisition on the ground that they were converted for non-agricultural residential use and that the respondent No.2 had already passed a resolution dated 28.06.2003 to delete converted lands from acquisition. The Division Bench therefore held that: "In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Authority is directed to take a decision on the application submitted by the appellants seeking de-notification by taking into account of the following facts: (i) The land held by the appellants *are *converted lands or garden lands. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 (ii) The Authority itself has passed a resolution on 28.06.2003, by which it has resolved to delete the *converted lands/garden lands from the acquisition proceedings. (iii) After publication of the final notification dated 09.09.2003, the Authority has de-notified land measuring 22 acres 25 guntas on the ground, where the same is converted land." (iii) The Division Bench then held; "The appellants are permitted to make representations within 15 days from today. If such representations are made to the State Government/competent authority within 15 days from today, the same shall be expeditiously considered and disposed of within an outer limit of three months thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the competent authority." (iv) He contends that in view of the judgment passed in W.A.No.1080/2006, the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1165/2006 was also disposed of on similar lines and the respondents therein were directed to maintain status-quo till the consideration of the representation. He thus contends that the respondent No.2 is not justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the layout is already formed by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 respondent No.2 and that sites are allotted therein. He thus prays that the impugned endorsement be set at nought and the acquisition proceedings be also set at nought, particularly in the light of the findings recorded by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1080/2006. 5. (i) The Writ Petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have contended inter alia that the possession of land in Sy.No.65/2 was taken over and evidenced by a mahazar dated 30.10.2003. An award dated 28.11.2003 was passed and notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1894') was issued on 27.12.2003. Thereafter, the compensation was deposited before the Civil Court on 30.12.2003. Likewise, in respect of Sy.No.7/8, it is contended that the possession of the said property was taken over, which was evidenced by a mahazar dated 09.01.2004, an award dated 12.12.2003 was passed and a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 07.01.2004. The compensation was deposited before the Civil Court on 10.01.2005. It is claimed that the acquisition was concluded and thus vested in the respondent No.2 free from all encumbrances. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 (ii) Thereafter, the acquired land was handed over to the engineering section of the respondent No.2 for formation of the Banashankari, VI Stage in accordance with the approved layout plan. It is contended that sites are already formed in the acquired lands and allotted to various allottees. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal - (2020) 8 SCC 129, where it was held that the preparation of a mahazar/panchanama is a legally recognized mode of taking possession of acquired lands and upon such possession being taken, the land vests absolutely in the acquiring authority and free from all encumbrances. (iii) It is also contended that though the lands in question were converted for non-agricultural residential use, the petitioner had not taken any steps to develop the lands in accordance with law. Reliance is placed upon Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1961'), to contend that the petitioner is bound to obtain permission from the competent planning authority before any layout is formed or before the land is developed. It is contended that mere grant of conversion of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 land for non-agricultural purposes does not itself confer any immunity against acquisition and nor does it vest the petitioner of the land. (iv) It is thus contended that respondent No.2 had rejected the representation of the petitioner as per the resolution dated 25.06.2007. Furthermore, it is claimed that the acquisition of land of petitioner does not lapse under Section 27 of the BDA Act, as the scheme is substantially implemented. Likewise, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section 24 of the Act 2013, in as much as the acquisition is undertaken under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 therefore pray that the petition be dismissed. 6. (i) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the possession of the land is taken over and a layout is formed and sites are allotted to allottees, there is no provision either under the BDA Act or under the Land Acquisition Act that allows an acquisition to lapse. He contended that the judgments of the Division Bench of this - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 Court in W.A.No.1080/2006 and W.A.No.1759/2019, relegated the petitioners to the respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioner may also be relegated before the respondent No.2 so that it could consider the representations of the petitioner afresh. (ii) He also contends that the mere conversion of the land does not result in the exclusion of the land from acquisition and the respondent No.2 is bound to verify whether the exclusion of the land of the petitioners would impact the compactness of the area and would affect the formation of the layout. He therefore prays that the petitioner be relegated before the respondent No.2 and a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the representations of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the allottee/respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 is in possession of a site allotted to her by the respondent No.2 and that the respondent No.4 has raised a compound and constructed a small shed and therefore, the interest of the respondent No.4 should be protected. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. 9. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the validity of the acquisition for Banashankari, VI Stage, upheld the acquisition in terms of the judgment dated 06.06.2006. However, a Co-ordinate Bench after noticing that there were large scale irregularities and discrimination in the process of identifying lands for acquisition, which could not be individually considered, passed an order in the light of a memo filed by the respondent No.2 and held as follows: "B-(i) All the petitioners who are landowners/converted site owners (duly converted for non-agricultural use in accordance with law), who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are concerned, on the ground that: a) their lands are situated within green belt area; b) they are totally built up; c) converted for non- agricultural use; (d) garden and recognized nursery lands; (e) who have built hospitals, educational - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within three months from the date of this order. (ii) It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the landowners whose objections were upheld and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued." 10. (i) It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioner was converted for non-agricultural residential use on 01.08.2001 and 16.10.2001 i.e. prior to a preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1080/2006 had noticed that the respondent No.2 had passed the resolution dated 28.06.2003, by which it resolved to delete converted land from the acquisition proceedings. The - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 Division Bench also noticed that the respondent No.3 pursuant to the aforesaid resolution had de-notified 22 acres 25 guntas, after the final notification dated 10.09.2003 on the ground the same were converted for non-agricultural residential use. Therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have rejected the representations filed by the petitioner on the ground that a layout is already formed in the lands belonging to the petitioner and that sites formed therein are already allotted to allotees. The respondent No.2 could not claim that it had formed a layout in the land of the petitioner or allotted sites in view of an interim order dated 06.01.2004 in W.P.No.44949/2003 by which, the respondents were directed to maintain status-quo of the properties, which was renewed upto the disposal of W.P.No.44949/2003. The respondent No.2 was clearly oblivious of the further direction issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.44949/2003 that: "Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Authority on the applications filed by petitioners either for allotment of site or for de-notifying or exemption sought for or considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the application in the light of the aforesaid direction, the authorities are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition." - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 (ii) Therefore, unless the representation of the petitioner was considered, the respondent No.2 could not have gone overboard by claiming that it had already formed a layout and that sites were already allotted to allottees. 11. As regards the request of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to relegate the petitioner back to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is relevant to note that this Court in W.P.NO.44949/2003 had directed the petitioner to file a representation and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to consider the representation. This Court expected the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to act fairly and justly. However, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have acted unfairly in not considering the representation of the petitioner in the light of its resolution dated 28.06.2003 and the deletion of 22 acres 25 guntas that they were converted for residential use. 12. Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.2 has failed to exercise its discretion in considering the representation of the petitioner, in the light of the order passed by this Court no purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner before the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Under the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 circumstances, it is appropriate that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed and the acquisition of the lands in question are set at nought by invalidating the acquisition notifications in so far as the aforesaid lands are concerned. This would also meet the ends of justice, as the petitioner has been knocking the doors of this Court from year 2003 and no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner before the respondent No.2. 13. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; ii. The preliminary notification bearing No.¨ÉA.C.¥Áæ/«.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.D/K4-¦.Dgï:194/2002-03 dated 07.11.2002 issued by the respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No.£ÀDE:750:¨ÉA¨sÀƸÁé:2003 dated 09.09.2003 issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.7/8, measuring 4 acres of Manavarthekaval - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31428 WP No. 22783 of 2015 Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and Sy.No.65/2, measuring 4 acres 05 guntas of Thalaghattapura Village, are quashed. iii. Any entry of the name of the respondent No.2 in the revenue records of the aforesaid lands shall stand deleted and the name of the petitioner shall stand restored. iv. It is made clear that if the petitioner desires to develop the aforesaid land, the same shall be done only in accordance with Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and under Section 32 of the BDA Act. v. If the respondent No.2 has allotted any site to the respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 shall take steps to allot an alternate site to the respondent No.4 in any other layout. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6