- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22651 OF 2018 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N.D. SADHAKA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE DR M. NAMASSIVAYA, 2. SRI. N. SHREYARTHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE DR M. NAMASSIVAYA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., 2(a) MRS. GEETHA SHREYARTHI W/O LATE MR. NAMASSIVAYA SHREYARTHI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.2 FAIR HILL RD., CLIFTON PARK, NY 12065, USA 2(b) MR. SHOWNAK SHREYARTHI S/O LATE MR. NAMASSIVAYA SHREYARTHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5785 BEAR RUN CIRCLE FAIRVIEW, PA 16415, USA 2(c) MS. SHWETA KEERTHI SHREYARTHI D/O LATE MR. NAMASSIVAYA SHREYARTHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2 FAIRHILL RD., CLIFTON PARK, NY 12065, USA AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2026. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 3. SRI N SUMITRA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE DR. M. NAMASSIVAYA, 4. SRI N. SUCHINTHAKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE DR M NAMASSIVAYA, 5. SRI. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA 6. SMT. N. VIDYARTHI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D/O LATE DR M. NAMASSIVAYA, 7. SMT. N BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA, 8. SMT. N. NAGARANI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, D/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA, 9. SMT. N. SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA, 10. SMT. N. NALINI JAYANTHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA, 11. SMT. N ARUNDATHI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O LATE M NAMASSIVAYA, 12. SMT. N. DEVAYANI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA, 13. SMT. N. NITHYA NANDINI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE M. NAMASSIVAYA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 13 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI N.D.SADHAKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.4, OBALAPPA GARDEN, K.R.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 082. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANU P KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1, 2 (A TO C), 3 TO 13) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 21.05.2008 IN NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 ALAO/158/2008-2009 SO FAR AS SL.NO.1404 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.47 (STATED AS SY. NO.46/1) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND THAT OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.02.2010 VIDE NO.UDD.51.MNX.2010 SO FAR AS SL.NO.1313 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.47 VIDE ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT 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 petitioners have called in question the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008- 2009 dated 21.05.2008 issued by the respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to Sl. No.1404 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.47 (stated as Sy. No.46/1 in the prayer portion of the petition) situate at Challaghatta Village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and sought for quashing the final notification bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010 Bangalore dated 18.02.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to Sl. No.1313 in respect of the aforesaid land bearing Sy. No.47 of Challaghatta Village. They have also sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in terms of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 aforesaid notifications are bad in law. The writ petitions are filed in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.47/1, 47 of Challaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, described in schedule ‘A’, schedule ‘B’, schedule ‘C’ and schedule ‘D’ to the petition. 2. The petitioners claim that their father owned 04 Acres of land in Sy. No.47 of Challaghatta village and the mother of the petitioners owned 08 Acres of land in Sy. No.47 of Challaghatta village and petitioner No.4 as Proprietor of M/s.Suchintaka Nurseries is the owner of land 04 Acres of land in Sy. No.47 of Challaghatta Village which were proposed for acquisition by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. The petitioners contend that the petitioner No.1 had raised a nursery and a garden in the aforesaid land and that on a request made by the owners of the land bearing Sy. Nos.45, 47 and 48 of Challaghatta Village, they were de-notified by the respondents as the same were utilized for the purpose of a nursery. Likewise, it is contended that land bearing Sy. Nos.45/2 and 48/1 of Challaghatta Village were also de-notified and deleted by the respondents on the ground that they were used for a nursery. The petitioners are, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 therefore, before this Court challenging the impugned notifications not only on the ground that the petitioners were discriminated but also on the ground that the respondent No.2 has failed to take possession of the land and failed to pass an award within the time prescribed and failed to implement the Scheme within a period of five years as prescribed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioners are entitled for exclusion of their respective land from acquisition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the acquisition of lands for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout is already upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1783/2014 disposed off on 22.02.2024 [2024 SCC Online Kar 27144]. He submits that the Division Bench has permitted land losers to file appropriate applications before the respondent No.2 seeking exclusion of their respective lands on any of the grounds mentioned therein and the respondent No.2 was directed to consider such applications in accordance with law. He, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 therefore, submits that the contentions urged in this petition are more or less academic and therefore, the challenge to the subject notifications be overruled. 5. When the petition is listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, a memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners which reads as follows: "1. The above writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority vide Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 and the Final Notification dated 18.02.2010, issued for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. The petition schedule properties include lands in Sy. Nos.47 and 49 of Challaghatta Village, which were notified for acquisition for the aforesaid layout. 2. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings have been pending for more than 15 years, and the petitioners have not derived any benefit therefrom. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners reconsidered the matter in light of the subsequent developments and the rehabilitation/allotment scheme implemented by the Bangalore Development Authority in respect of lands acquired for the formation of Kempegowda Layout. Under the said scheme, the landowners/legal heirs of the acquired lands are extended the benefit of allotment of developed sites/developed land in lieu of acquisition, commonly referred to as the 60:40 Scheme. 3. The petitioners submit that they concede the acquisition and do not intend to continue the challenge. In view of the petitioners conceding the acquisition proceedings, the process of formation of the layout will no longer be hindered. Therefore, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit under the 60:40 Scheme within a period of three months from the date of this order, in accordance with law. The petitioners further pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the developed land as per the said Scheme, and that at least 50% of the petitioners' entitlement be allotted in a single contiguous block, so that the petitioners and their family members may enjoy the fruits of the order in a fair and effective manner. 4. The petitioners respectfully submit that the lands acquired from the family are of substantial extent and the petitioners constitute members of the same family. In the event the developed land / sites are allotted in a fragmented and scattered manner in different portions of the layout, the very object of granting rehabilitative benefit to the original land owners would be substantially diluted, and the petitioners would be deprived of meaningful enjoyment, joint use and planned development of the property so allotted to them. 5. The petitioners therefore submit that, while conceding to the acquisition and seeking disposal of the present writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reserve liberty in favour of the petitioners to submit an appropriate representation / application before the Bangalore Development Authority for grant of the benefit under the 60:40 scheme and further direct the Bangalore Development Authority to consider such request in a time bound manner and in accordance with law, with a specific endeavor to allot at least 50% of the petitioners' entitlement in one single contiguous block, so that the petitioners and their family members may put the same to joint use, enjoyment and development. 6. The petitioners submit that such a direction would not prejudice the Bangalore Development Authority in any manner, and on the contrary would facilitate quietus to the pending dispute while also ensuring that the rehabilitative benefit intended for the land owners is made effective and meaningful. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 Wherefore, the Petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) record the submission of the petitioners that they are not pressing the challenge to the acquisition notifications and are conceding to the acquisition of the petition schedule properties for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout; b) dispose of the above writ petition accordingly; c) allot developed sites/developed land in lieu of acquisition, under the 60:40 Scheme; d) reserve liberty to the petitioners to submit an appropriate representation / application before Respondent No.1 Bangalore Development Authority seeking allotment of at least 50% of the petitioners' entitlement in one single contiguous block under the 60:40 scheme in respect of the acquired lands; e) direct Respondent No.1 Bangalore Development Authority to consider such representation / application in accordance with law, within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; f) pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 6. In view of the above, this Writ petition stands disposed off upholding the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. The respondent No.2 is directed to allot 40% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation to the petitioners in respect of their respective holdings in the land bearing Sy. No.47 of Challaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32406 WP No. 22651 of 2018 Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioners shall make a representation before the respondent No.1 seeking 40% of developed land within one month from today and the respondent No.2 shall consider allotting 50% of 40% of the developed land in one contiguous block to enable the petitioners to continue the Nursery. The applications to be filed by the petitioners shall be disposed off within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such applications. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69