- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9622 OF 2024 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17503 OF 2024 (LA-RES) IN WP No. 9622/2024 BETWEEN: SRI. J. GOPAL REDDY S/O M JAYARAMA REDDY AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SY. NO.61 2ND CROSS, B.C.M. LAYOUT MUTTASANDRA ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560087 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI AND SMT. S.K.ANURADHA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURE, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SAMPARKA SOUDHA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP ORIYAN MALL, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KRRANN/BHO.S/BSR-01/CR-4B/2022-23 DATED 13.02.2023 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WIDE ANNEXURE-B SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BEARING NO.1/10/1/20/1/3C SITUATED AT VARTHUR VILLAGE HOBLI TO AN EXTENT OF AREA 1258 AS INDICATED IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE AFTER HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS CANNOT COMPEL THE PETITIONER TO FOREGO HER LAND AND BUILDINGS FOR THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY ACCEPTING THE SCHEME OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) IN LIEU OF THE MONETARY COMPENSATION AND ETC. IN WP NO. 17503/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. P. KANTHALAKSHMI W/O V.N.BYANNA, AGED 78 YEARS R/AT NO.451/233/263 OPP. YELLAMMA TEMPLE VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560087. 2. SRI. VASUDEV V.B. S/O V.N.BYANNA, AGED 51 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 R/AT NO. 451/233/263 OPP. YELLAMMA TEMPLE VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560087. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI AND SMT. S.K.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURE, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SAMPARKA SOUDHA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP. ORION MALL DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO RETAIN 800 SQ.FT. AREA WHEREIN THE OLD HOUSE IS SITUATED BY TAKING THE RETURN OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THIS 800 SQ.FT. AREA AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No. PÀgÀC¤¤/¨sÀÆ.¸Áé/BSR-01/¹.Dgï-4B/20122-23 (as per Annexure - B) dated 13.02.2023, issued by respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to acquisition of his property bearing No.1/1A/2A/1/3C, situated at Varthur Village, Varthur Hobli, and hold that the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to forego his land and building by accepting transferable development rights in lieu of cash compensation. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to record his dissent against accepting Transferable Development Rights (henceforth referred to as ‘TDR’) and direct the respondents to apply the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’) in relation to payment of compensation in cash. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 2. (i) The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 issued a notification bearing No.PÀgÀC¤¤/¨sÀÆ.¸Áé/UÁæªÀÄoÁt ¸ÀévÀÄÛ/ BSR- 04B/¹.Dgï-01/2021-22 dated 15.10.2022 under Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1964’) to acquire portions of properties for construction of 1.90 kilometers of elevated road at Varthur. A final notification dated 13.02.2023 was issued under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1964. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a commercial building bearing No.1/1/A/1/2B/1/3C, measuring 7488 square feet over which 11678 square feet of built-up area is constructed. The petitioner claims that as per the notifications referred above, an area of 1258 square feet was proposed to be acquired and the respondents had offered TDR in lieu of compensation in cash. (ii) The petitioner claims that he had filed his objections to the preliminary notification and sought for adequate compensation as provided under the Act, 2013. He also claimed that if the property of the petitioner is acquired, then the remaining portion of the building would be rendered useless. The petitioner claims that these objections were not considered - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 and the respondents have implemented the project. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the acquisition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the scheme proposed by the respondent No.1 under Section 15 of the Act, 1964, was to proceed with the acquisition on consent and none of the landowners had consented to the acquisition and therefore it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to have exercised power under the Act, 2013. He contends that if a portion of the property of petitioner is acquired, that would render the other portions of the property useless. Therefore, it is necessary that the alignment of the elevated road is reconsidered. 4. When this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly considered that the elevated road is already in place and therefore no purpose would be served in going into the validity of the notifications. He also contended that the respondent No.2 has granted compensation to various landowners, who have lost their land - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 for the subject acquisition, but the respondents are trying to offer TDR to petitioner which is not acceptable to him. 5. Having regard to the fact that the purpose for which the notifications were issued is already implemented, the only remedy that can be granted to the petitioner is that he is entitled to the compensation in accordance with law as provided under the Act 2013. If in the event any land loser has been provided with higher compensation, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the benefit of higher compensation. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and also seek enhanced compensation if the respondent No.2 has determined higher compensation in respect of a similarly situated property as that of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall pass an award as provided under the Act, 2013 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. IN W.P.NO.17503/2024 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to retain 800 square feet of land where an old house is situate by receiving back the compensation amount from the petitioners in respect of 800 square feet. They have also sought for a direction to rectify the award taking into consideration the value of the property in the surrounding area and to pay the just compensation on par with compensation paid to other land losers and also direct the respondents to apply the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 2013'). 2. (i) The petitioners claim that petitioner No.1 is the mother of petitioner No.2 and are owners of the property bearing old Khaneshumari No.233/263, present BBMP Khatha No.451/233/263, situate at Varthur Village, Bengaluru East Taluk. They contend that respondent No.1 issued a preliminary notification under Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1964') on 12.10.2022 for construction of 1.90 km of elevated road at Varathur. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 property of the petitioners mentioned above was also sought to be acquired. As per the notification 1496 square feet of land belonging to the petitioners was notified for acquisition. Following this, a notice dated 05.11.2022 was issued to the petitioners under Section 16 of the Act, 1964 for marking and measuring the property notified for acquisition. (ii) Thereafter, intimation was issued to the petitioners under Section 17 (3) of the Act, 1964 on 13.02.2023. However, in this notification, the area mentioned is more than the area notified in the final notification, which worked out to 2282 square feet. The petitioners claim that their property comprises of a commercial building over an area measuring 3000 square feet and an old house measuring 800 square feet. It is in this property that the respondent No.1 intended to acquire 2282 square feet. (iii) The petitioners claim that they are running a business of pawn broking in the aforesaid property. They contend that the respondent No.1 has notified properties on either side of the Varthur main road and in the case of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 petitioners, a property bigger than what was notified was sought to be acquired. (iv) They contend that an award notice dated 24.03.2023 and a rectified award notice dated 10.08.2023 were issued to the petitioners in terms of which the compensation determined is a sum of Rs.2,15,44,942/-. The rectified award makes it clear that market value is determined at Rs.4,217/- per square feet, though the residential properties in the area are valued at Rs.10,400/- per square feet. In support of this contention they have placed on record a sale deed dated 03.11.2023, which establishes the fact. (v) They contend that they have received the compensation amount as per the rectified award notice. However, what was handed over to the respondents is excluding the 800 square feet where an old house is situate. They contend that they desire of saving 800 square feet so that they could reside in the house and if that is also acquired then what would be left out is only 129.651 square feet, which would not serve any useful purpose. They contend that as per the new sketch prepared by the respondent No.2, the portion - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 sought to be acquired is also covering 800 square feet minus 129.651 square feet, which is left without acquisition in the corner portion. (vi) The petitioners contend that the respondents propose to form a 100 feet road by widening it to 50 feet from the middle of the road on both sides. Therefore, the respondent No.1 ought to have issued a notification for acquisition of 30 feet, but what is ought to be acquired is 63.5 feet from east to west and 23.6 feet north to south, thereby deviating from the original plan. The respondent No.2 has not issued preliminary notification for acquisition of the additional land. The deviation difference is noticeable from the preliminary notification and the final notification. 3. They contend that they filed objections to the respondent No.2 objecting against acquisition of their property and sought for an alternative to grant compensation as provided under the Act, 2013. They contend that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (henceforth referred to as ‘BBMP’) had assessed their property as commercial property and had issued an order to pay tax. Therefore, they contend - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 that they are entitled to compensation by considering the property as put to commercial use. They claim that the respondents have not responded to their objections so far, but they started implementing the elevated road project by issuing a notice to vacate the premises. Since the project has to achieve completion by April, 2024. The petitioners are therefore before this Court seeking the above reliefs. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, who contends that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy to seek enhanced compensation if they genuinely believe that the awarded compensation is not adequate. Therefore, they contend that petitioners are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. They contend that the petitioners having accepted the entire compensation of Rs.2,15,44,942/- without demur and voluntarily surrendering possession of the acquired land to the respondent No.2 cannot wriggle out and claim enhanced compensation. 6. It is contended that the property of the petitioners was acquired for a public purpose namely for constructing an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 elevated corridor at Varthur Village. The State Government after due deliberation granted administrative approval for the project on 12.02.2020. Thereafter, preliminary notification was issued on 30.09.2022, calling upon the affected landowners to submit their records and objections if any. 7. It is contended that the claim of the petitioners that the property in question is used for commercial purposes is incorrect. As the Khatha extract issued by the BBMP discloses that property bearing Khatha No.451/233/263, is residential. Therefore, it is contended that petitioners are not entitled to claim that the property is used for commercial purposes and therefore has to be treated as a commercial property for the purpose of determining compensation. 8. It is contended that the valuation report prepared by the authorized valuator described the structure on the property as an AC sheet roof with load bearing walls, contradicting the petitioners exaggerated claim that a multi- storied commercial complex measuring 3000 square feet was constructed thereon. They contend that the respondents have scrupulously adhered to statutory mandates at every stage of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 the acquisition. They further contend that following the preliminary notification a joint measurement and computation was conducted under Section 16 of the Act, 1964 in the presence of the petitioners and engineers from the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited. The actual extent of land required for optimal project alignment was scientifically determined as 2282 square feet, after which a final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1964 was issued on 23.03.2023. 9. They contend that the allegations of the petitioners that the respondents arbitrarily altered the alignment from 1.300 km to 1.920 km without intimation is false. They claimed that the preliminary notification was tentative whereas final notification was issued after a comprehensive survey and technical assessment. They claim that this two stage process is inherent to the statutory scheme and cannot be construed as deviation or arbitrary. They contend that a notice under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1964 was issued and duly served upon the petitioners and full opportunity was given to them to file their - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 objections, which were carefully considered before determining fair compensation. 10. They contend that the market value was fixed at a sum of Rs.4,217/- per square feet, based on the guidance value issued by the Sub-Registrar three years prior to the preliminary notification. Thus, the reliance of the petitioners on a subsequent sale dated 03.11.2023 to claim higher valuation is legally untenable. As compensation must be determined with reference to the market conditions prevailing at the time of preliminary notification. 11. They contend that the petitioners belated claim for 800 square feet of the property is factually untenable and practically impossible. They contend that the entire structure has been demolished and vacant possession is delivered to M/s Nagabushanam & Co., Hyderabad. The contractor engaged for the project execution pursuant to an agreement dated 08.03.2019. They claim that the project has achieved substantial progress. Therefore, exempting any portion of the land within the acquired area would fundamentally compromise structural integrity and project viability. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 12. They contend that the challenge raised by the petitioners invoking Article 300A of the Constitution of India, is wholly misconceived, as the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others - (2024) 10 SCC 533 had held that acquisition for public purpose conducted through due process of law and by paying adequate compensation does not violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They claimed that the project has achieved the highest level administrative and financial approvals from the department and substantial public funds have already been invested on the project and therefore, allowing the petitioners to retain a portion of the property acquired would cause irreparable harm to the public interest. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners may be permitted to retain 800 square feet of property where a house is situate and that the petitioners are again willing to refund the compensation received in respect of that 800 square feet. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that allowing the petitioners to retain the acquired portion would be deleterious to the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 project. He contends that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined, they may approach the Reference Court in accordance with law. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 15. The elevated road is already in place and therefore no purpose would be served in going into the validity or otherwise of the notifications. The petitioners have received the compensation determined by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the acquisition is complete in all respects. The petitioners cannot now make any claim for restoration of portion of the acquired land, as they do not have any vested right to seek restitution of the land. However, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, they are bound to take necessary steps as provided under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They certainly cannot seek for any reliefs such as the one sought for in this writ petition. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29586 WP No. 9622 of 2024 C/W WP No. 17503 of 2024 16. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioners to seek reference if they are entitled in law or seek enhanced compensation if the respondent No.2 has awarded higher compensation in respect of a similarly situated property like the property of the petitioners. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38