- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1299 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.G.S.KANNUR., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI A.SATHYANARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH, R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 077. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -560 001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 3. SRI.VISHWANATHA REDDY S G, S/O GOPALA REDDY S V, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, RESIDING AT NO.2, 8TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, NEAR CRYSTAL APARTMENT, BENGALURU - 560 076. 4. SRI.G.SURYA PRABHU, S/O R.GNANASURYAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.108, FLAT NO.401, GOLDEN BLOSSOM APARTMENTS, ROYAL ORCHID HOTEL ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 071. 5. DR.CHIKKANNA S/O LATE KALAIH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.39, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, 'H' BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 022. 6. SRI.B.S.UDAY SHANKAR S/O LATE B.M.SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT T-3, S LC EUPHORIA, R.M.V 2ND STAGE, LOTTE GOLLAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SAMPATH.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 4.11.2025 SRI.P.N.RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE ACCEPTS NOTICE FOR R3 TO 6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.NO.14587/2024 DATED 25.04.2025 AND DISMISS THE W.P.NO.14587/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) This appeal by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.14587/2024 under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court. 2. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition quashing the Resolution bearing No.43/2024 passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority1 vide Annexure-E insofar as lands 1 for short 'the BDA' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 in question i.e., 01 Acre 36 guntas of land in Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk. Further quashing the Communication issued by the Government dated 15.03.2025 and directed respondent No.2 to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in dispute in the writ petition, accepting the recommendation of Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana Committee at Annexure-C dated 25.03.2022. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 4. The facts germane to filing of this appeal are as under: The petitioner in W.P.No.14587/2024 filed the Writ Petition seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the undated resolution bearing No.43/24 passed by the Respondent No.2 to 6 vide ANNEXURE-E, and b) Consequently, direct the Respondents to accept the recommendations dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 25.03.2022 of Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N.Keshavnarayana Committee vide ANNEXURE-C and pass necessary orders de- notifying the schedule property. c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in a Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 19762 dated 03.02.2003, the BDA proposed to acquire 3,339 Acres and 12 Guntas of land for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. Thereafter, a modified Preliminary Notification was issued proposing to acquire 3,839 Acres and 12 Guntas spreading over 16 Villages. However, a Final Notification under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 23.02.2004 only in respect of 2,750 Acres of land, including 02 Acres and 36 Guntas of land situated at Thanisandra Village, wherein 01 Acre of land belongs to 2 Hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1976' - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 the petitioner's uncle Narayanappa and remaining 01 Acre and 36 Guntas of land belongs to the petitioner. 6. Several land owners filed Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings before the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.2660-04/2004 and connected matters. The Writ Court struck down the entire acquisition proceedings and the decision is reported in the case of SMT.SHARADAMMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3. The said order was called in question in W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected matters. The coordinate Bench of this Court set-aside the order of the Writ Court, however directions were issued to the respondents to consider the representations given by the land owners who have sought deletion or dropping of the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. Some of the land owners including the petitioner taken the order of the coordinate bench of this Court before the Apex Court in SLPs, wherein the order passed by the division Bench has 3 ILR 2005 KAR 3701 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 been upheld in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS VS. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS4, 7. It is the claim of the petitioner that the Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY supra held that several lands acquired in Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennuru and Challakere which were in a very small pockets surrounded by lands which were neither acquired nor deleted from the proposed acquisition, the BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for formation of self contained layouts. 8. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, respondent No.2 - BDA and its Board resolved to delete 983.33 Guntas of land and issued a second modified Final Notification on 18.06.2014. In the said Final Notification, 01 Acre of land belonging to the petitioner's uncle was left out of the acquisition proceedings, while 01 4 (2010) 7 SCC 129 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 acre 36 Guntas belonging to the petitioner were continued in the acquisition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Writ Court in W.P.No.33137/2015, challenging the Final Notification dated 18.06.2014. The Writ Court clubbed all the Writ Petitions and in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected matters including the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, rejected the challenge raised against the second modified Final Notification dated 18.06.2014. However, appointed a Three Men Committee headed by Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana to look into the various aspects as indicated in the order to implement the order passed in W.A.No.2624/2005 and connected matters dated 25.11.2005 in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, BDA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS and also in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BONDU RAMASWAMY. In addition to this, the Writ Court also directed that the Committee shall examine all the factual issues pursuant to the direction issued by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 coordinate Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and submit a report to the BDA as to whether such claims would fall within the exception carved out under the judgments for deleting the lands or not. The BDA is further directed to take action on the said Committee report whether to delete or to include such land from acquisition. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Committee constituted in proceedings bearing No.KNKC No.02/2022(TS). The committee found that the property in question falls under the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court and accordingly recommended for deletion of the property in question from the acquisition of land proceedings. The Committee founded its recommendation on the basis of spot inspection undertaken by it. Under the inspection, it was found that an area of an extent of 1,719.89 sq. mtrs., of land has already been made use for the purpose of laying of road and the same shall be excluded and shall be maintained as road. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 10. Despite the recommendation, the Board has taken an exception to the recommendation and passed resolution to include the land of the Petitioner and sent this resolution for approval to the Government. The Government thereafter, issued a Communication dated 15.03.2025 approving the resolution during the subsistence of the Writ Petition before the Writ Court. An application was filed thereafter seeking amendment to include a payer seeking to quash the Communication dated 15.03.2025 issued by the Government. 11. Before the Writ Court, it was submitted that the BDA has failed to consider the well-reasoned recommendation of Hon'ble Sri Justice K.V.Keshavnarayan Committee. The Committee noticing all the factual matters and even considered the other lands measuring major extent in other survey numbers abutting the lands in acquisition on the northern side as well as southern side were not notified and found that, all the lands which have surrounded the land in dispute have not been notified for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 acquisition. In these circumstances held that, the land which is acquired remained as an island. The Committee further observed that in the total extent of 02 acres 36 Guntas of land in the survey number, one part of the land i.e., 01 acre belonging to the petitioner's uncle has been deleted from the proceedings in the modified Final Notification. However, the land of the petitioner is notified for acquisition and this amounts to separate/ different yardsticks for the same lands, which is unsustainable. 12. It was further submitted that, the Committee further concluded that no specific reason is forthcoming from BDA or the reports filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for not deleting the lands in question, when as aforesaid, some portion of the land dropped from the acquisition proceedings considering the representations, recommended for deletion of the land. Further, it was argued that the State Government while issuing the endorsement on 15.03.2015 has not applied its mind except quoting the resolution passed by the Board of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 the BDA. In these circumstances, the Writ Court on consideration of rival submissions directed the Government Advocate to place entire records under which the consideration with respect to resolution has been taken. 13. On perusal of the records, the Writ Court has come to a conclusion that except culling out the recommendation on the resolution passed by the Board of BDA, no special reasons has been assigned for acceptance of the resolution. 14. Learned Senior counsel who represented the BDA before the Writ Court has contended that if the Committee were to examine the case of every individual land owner, it could find that the neighbouring lands were dropped from acquisition proceedings for a particular reason and therefore, the particular land also should be deleted from acquisition proceedings because it had a common factor. He further submits that any benefit which - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 was granted to the adjacent land and wrongfully dropped against the directions of BONDU RAMASWAMY, the same benefit cannot be extended to the neighbouring land in question. The entire acquisition should be viewed holistically. The dropping of earlier acquisition should be held as illegal and unless the said thing is done, the direction was to restore such lands for acquisition in order to maintain a contiguity of the layout at the hands of the BDA. 15. The Writ Court having considered the rival submissions, has come to the conclusion that the land to an extent of 01 acre 36 Guntas did deserve the same treatment which is considered in part of the land i.e., 01 Acre of land belonged to the petitioner's uncle and also taking note of the fact that an extent of 1,719.89 sq. mtrs. has already been used for the formation of road, the petitioner has to leave the said land and considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Court observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 clearly made a statement that the petitioner is giving up his claim for compensation in respect of the road which is formed on the land in question measuring 1,719.89 sq. mtrs., and declined to accept the contention of the learned Senior counsel that sites have already been formed and allotted to the Allottees by executing sale deeds, and the acquisition of land cannot be dropped. The Writ Court finding that petitioner has given a representation as back as 2005 seeking dropping of the acquisition on the same ground on which his uncle had sought for dropping of acquisition, and in view of the direction issued by the Division Bench as well as Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY, found that the recommendations of the Committee is well considered and the resolution passed by the BDA in not acceding to the recommendations requires to be quashed and accordingly, quashed the Resolution passed by the BDA as well as the Endorsement issued by the Government and directed implementation of recommendation by dropping the acquisition proceedings - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 in respect of the land in dispute, except to the extent of land of 1,719.89 sq. mtrs used for laying of road. It is this Order passed by the Writ court is called in question by respondent No.2 BDA in this appeal. 16. Heard Sri.G.S.Kannur, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Sampath.A, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2. Vide order dated 04.11.2025, Sri.P.N.Rajeshwara, learned counsel accepted notice for respondents 3 to 6. 17. Sri.Kannur, learned Senior counsel reiterated the very same contentions agitated before the Writ Court, which was culled out in Paragraph No.16 of the Order. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the Committee was required to examine the entire aspect of the matter holistically and not on case to case basis and as such, the Resolution passed by the BDA in not accepting - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 the recommendation is well founded and the same has been also accorded with the seal of the State Government and sought to allow the appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Writ Court. 18. Sri.Sampath.A, argued in support of the order of the Writ Court and also made clear that the petitioner is ready to forgo the land which has already been used for the formation of road to an extent of 1,719.89 sq. mtrs. 19. Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, stands in toe with learned Senior counsel for the appellant. 20. Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the entire appeal paper. 21. The Writ Court extensively considering the entire material placed before it as well as the recommendations of the Committee has held that the Committee after local inspection found that no improvement is made on the land except laying of road and since part of the land has been dropped from the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 acquisition proceedings, which is part of the same survey number found that the recommendations of the Committee headed by Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana is well founded and the Resolution passed, so also the Endorsement issued by the State Government, are unsustainable in law and accordingly quashed the Resolution. The Writ Court from Paragraphs 14 to 21 assigned reasons for allowing the Writ Petition, which reads as under: "14. During the course of these proceedings, this Court had directed the respondent-State to place on record any material, which was taken into consideration by the State Government to accept the resolution passed by the Bangalore Development Authority. Pursuant to the same, the learned HCGP had filed a memo on 17.03.2025 enclosing copy of a communication dated 15.03.2025 made by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department to the learned Government Advocate. This Court finds that in the communication dated 15.03.2025 the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, has only culled out the recommendation or the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 Development Authority and for the same reasons, the State Government has accepted the resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority. 15. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gurudas S.Kannur, appearing on behalf of the respondent- BDA submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the Committee was that it shall also examine as to whether deletion of 983.12 acres of land by the Government subsequent to the notification dated 23.02.2004 and before issuance of notification dated 18.06.2014 was in accordance with the dicta laid down by the Division Bench and whether it was in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the Committee was required to examine the entire aspect of the matter holistically and not on case to case basis. 16. Learned Senior Counsel contended that if the Committee were to examine the case of every individual land owner, it could find that the neighbouring lands were dropped from acquisition proceedings for a particular reason and therefore, the particular land also should be deleted from acquisition proceedings because it had a common factor. On the other hand, the directions issued by - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 the Division Bench and the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case was to ensure that if the State Government had wrongly dropped the acquisition proceedings, the said benefit cannot be given to the neighbouring land in question, on the other hand, the dropping of the acquisition proceedings earlier should be held as illegal and therefore, the direction was to restore such lands for acquisition in order to maintain a contiguity of the layout at the hands of the BDA. 17. 17. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel for the impleading applicants. 18. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it is very clear that the Committee has taken into consideration all relevant aspects before recommending the deletion of the lands in question from acquisition proceedings, since all the neighbouring lands surrounding the land in question were either not notified or were deleted from acquisition proceedings subsequently. 19. Most importantly, it is noticeable that 1 acre of land in the same survey number belonging to the petitioner were dropped from the acquisition proceedings in the year 2014 and it is not understandable as to how the other extent of 1 acre - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 36 guntas did not deserve the same treatment at the hands of the BDA and the State Government. The Committee which has inspected the land in question found that, except a kacha road, nothing else is formed on the land in question. Even otherwise, learned Counsel for the petitioner clearly made a statement that the petitioner is giving up his claim for compensation in respect of the road which is formed on the land in question measuring 1719.89 sq. mtrs. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsels for the impleading applicants/allottees that sites have been formed and absolute sale deeds have been executed in favour of some of the allottees and therefore, the lands cannot be dropped from acquisition proceedings, is a contention which cannot be countenanced. As rightly found by the Committee, the petitioner had given a representation as far back as 2005 seeking dropping of acquisition proceedings on the same ground on which his Uncle had also sought for dropping of the acquisition proceedings. It is strange that the Bangalore Development Authority and the State Government thought it fit to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of 1 acre of land in question, while continuing the acquisition proceedings in respect of the remaining 1 acre 36 guntas of land, when it was clear that 1 acre and 36 guntas will form an island surrounded by unacquired - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 lands. The land in question clearly falls within the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy, where it was directed that similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner. The Apex Court had clearly rejected the contention of the BDA and the State Government that such small islands could be used as stand alone park or playground with regard to the layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. 20. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the Committee of Hon’ble Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana had considered all the relevant material before recommending to the BDA to drop the lands in question from acquisition proceedings. However, the BDA did not accept the recommendation and on the other hand, the Board of the BDA is of the opinion that though the land in question may form an island of a layout, nevertheless, the lands in question are very much necessary, since a road has been formed on the land in question connecting to the layouts formed in Sy.Nos.94/6, 94/7, 94/8, 94/9, 95/3 and 96 of Thanisandra Village, which measures about 8 acres 29 guntas. The Committee has rightly found that the said lands are nowhere in the vicinity of the lands in question and it cannot be accepted that, the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 lands in question are necessary for maintaining the contiguity of the layout. Factually, the Committee has found that all the lands surrounding the land in question are either not acquired or dropped from acquisition proceedings later. The petitioner has also placed on record his undertaking that the BDA may continue to have the road for linking the other layouts formed by the BDA and that the petitioner has voluntarily given up all claims in respect of the said extent of land measuring 1719.89 sq. mtrs., which forms part of the road, formed on the land in question. 21. The impleading applicants who have been allotted sites said to have been formed in the land in question are entitled for allotment of alternative sites at the hands of the BDA. Such directions were also issued by this Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 dated 27.09.2021 while directing the BDA to consider the claim of all such allottees for allotment of alternative sites." 22. The Committee after holding local inspection has come to the conclusion especially at Paragraph No.34, after observing in Paragraph No.30 that, there is nothing to indicate that the land in question is not similar to the adjacent land dropped from the acquisition, proceeded to - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 hold a spot inspection after issuing prior notice to the applicant & BDA and conducted the spot inspection on 17.02.2022. On inspection of the property, the Committee found that no development activity having been carried out in the land in question and it was found as a vacant land surrounded on all sides by lands which are either not notified for acquisition or lands deleted from acquisition. Except a Kaccha road across the land, there was no other essential facilities provided and found that the BDA by merely making sites on the maps prepared has carried out process of allotment and also found that no acceptable material has been placed by the BDA on record to show that possession of the land in question was taken over and any developmental activities having been carried out. In view of the above, the Committee found that the land in question is a small pocket as it is surrounded by unacquired lands and self-contained layout cannot be formed in the land in question nor the sites proposed to be formed therein could be integrated with other developed - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 area in the neighbourhood and concluded that the land in question falls within the parameters laid out by the Division Bench and as per the clarification issued by the Apex Court, and held that the land in question also deserves to be deleted from acquisition and accordingly made recommendations. 23. After perusal of the entire material and the contentions, we find that part of the land which is 01 Acre in the very same survey number belonged to the petitioner's uncle has been dropped from the acquisition proceedings, however for the reasons best known to the BDA, the land of petitioner has been included in the acquisition proceedings by way of issuance of modified Final Notification in the year 2014. Though a contention in a very feeble voice has been made on behalf of the BDA that a Preliminary Notification has been issued in 2019 in respect of 01 Acre of land which has been deleted or dropped from the Final Notification, however to the query of the Court, 'What was the end result of the Preliminary - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18586-DB WA No. 1299 of 2025 Notification of 2019?', neither the copy of the Preliminary Notification furnished nor the counsel is able to answer the query regarding the end result. In these circumstances, we find that the recommendations as well as the order passed supra are in accordance with law and well- reasoned and on facts decided by the Committee after holding a spot inspection. In view of the factual findings by the Committee and the reasons assigned in upholding the same by the Writ Court, we endorse the order passed by the Committee as well as the Writ Court and do not find any reason to take any contra view. In that view of the matter, the Writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6.2