- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31810 OF 2025 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE KENDANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BETTANAPALYA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, RAMOHALLI POST, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 060. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REPD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. …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:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN TERMS OF ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN W.A. NO.1783/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS BY A COMMON ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. 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 in this writ petition has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to consider his representation dated 28.04.2025, in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification issued by respondent No.1 bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009 dated 21.05.2008 as well as the final notification bearing No.UDD.51.MNX 2010 dated 18.02.2010 in so far as it relates to 13.5 guntas of land in Sy.No.189/2 situate at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 Bheemanakuppe, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and to declare the scheme of acquisition for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout has lapsed on the ground that possession of the said property is not taken. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.189/2 of Bheemanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 13.5 guntas which was notified for acquisition for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. The petitioner contends that the notifications issued by the State Government were quashed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, which was then assailed in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals, which were disposed off in terms of a common order dated 22.02.2024. (ii) The petitioner claims that the land in Sy.No.189/2 totally measures 03 acres 13 guntas, out of which, 27 guntas fell to his share. The respondent No.1 finally notified 01 acre 33 guntas and left out 01 acre 25 guntas from acquisition. In an endorsement dated 31.01.2023 issued by the respondent No.1, it was specifically stated that as per the layout plan of Sy.No.189/2, 1 acre 25 guntas was not acquired, out of which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 13 guntas belonged to the petitioner. It was stated that out of said 01 acre 25 guntas, an extent of 01 acre 18 guntas was not included in the preliminary notification, while the remaining 07 guntas, though included in the preliminary notification, was not included in the final notification. (iii) The petitioner contends that representation was submitted seeking exclusion of his land from acquisition on the ground that it was fully built up and could not be integrated into the layout and therefore prayed for dropping the acquisition. Later, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer visited the spot and prepared a sketch showing the possession of the property as well as the development in the entire extent of 01 acre 22 guntas of land. Thus, after the order was passed by the respondent No.3, a sketch was prepared, where it was clearly mentioned that the land in question was fully built up even at the time of issuance of the preliminary notification and that the petitioner and their family members are residing therein. (iv) The petitioner contends that without considering the representation seeking to drop the land from acquisition, respondent No.3 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 submit an appropriate representation, claiming developed land, failing which an appropriate award would be passed. The petitioner further contends that respondent No.3 himself had issued an endorsement dated 05.10.2023, acknowledging the fact that 01 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.189/2 was completely built up and that the petitioner and others were residing therein. The petitioner therefore contends that as the respondents have neither taken possession of the land nor passed appropriate orders granting compensation, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed. Alternatively, the petitioner pray for a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2025 in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals and to declare that the scheme for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout has lapsed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and prays to issue a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the validity of the notifications is already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals. He contends that if the petitioners in these petitions have filed their representations seeking to extend the benefit granted to the appellants in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in part. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this petition to quash the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158 dated 21.05.2008 and the final notification bearing No.UDD.51.MNX2010 dated 18.02.2010 is rejected. However, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 28.04.2025 in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1783/2014 and connected appeals. 6. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33303 WP No. 31810 of 2025 7. It is needless to mention that the until the representations are considered, the respondents shall not take any action either to damage or demolish or take any precipitative action against the petitioner's property in Sy.No.189/2 of Bheemanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8