- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1223 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. SRIBALAJI G.I. S/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD NO.14, NEW NO.15, 'SHAKTHI NIVAS', 4TH MAIN O.M.B.R. LAYOUT, BANASWADI BANGALORE - 560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.3, NORTH SUB-DIVISION R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.3, NORTH SUB-DIVISION R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2022 BEARING NO.BDA EE (N) AEE N- 3/UAC/OMBR/2021-22/1013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A). Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B - GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question an order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 33(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act'). 2. (i) The petitioner claims that one Sri. Yelevenkatappa Reddy was the authorized holder of a village office which was endowed with 02 acres 6 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.27 of Banaswadi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. In view of coming into force of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the aforesaid land stood vested in the Government. The said Sri. Yelevenkatappa Reddy claimed occupancy rights in respect of the said land which was later granted to him. The land granted to him in Sy.No.27 was thereafter bifurcated and an extent of 2 acres 6 ½ guntas of land in the said Sy.No.27 was assigned with new number i.e., Sy.No.27/11, where the said Sri. Yelevenkatappa Reddy formed sites and sold a few to others. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 (ii) When things stood thus, a preliminary notification dated 03.11.1977 was issued by the respondent - BDA for acquiring the aforesaid property along with land in other survey numbers for the purpose of forming ‘Old Madras Road – Banaswadi Road’ (O.M.B.R) Layout. This was followed by a final notification dated 13.11.1980. However, the land bearing Sy.No.27/11 measuring 2 acres 6 ½ guntas was not purportedly notified and the possession of the property purportedly remained with Sri. Yelevenkatappa Reddy. After the death of Sri. Yelevenkatappa Reddy, all the records in respect of the aforesaid property was mutated in the name of his son Sri. Anjaneya Reddy. The said Sri. Anjaneya Reddy sold the site bearing new Municipal No.15, PID No.88-280-15 (Previously Site No.14), HL khata No.1249/1292, measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 61 ½ feet in all measuring 2460 sq. ft. situate at Ward No.88, 4th Main Road, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, to one Sri. K. Periyandavan in terms of a sale deed dated 13.12.1993. Thereafter, revenue records pertaining to - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 aforesaid property was transferred in the name of Sri. K. Periyandavan. (iii) The petitioner claims that the said Sri. K. Periyandavan gifted the aforesaid property to his daughter Smt. Geetha K. Kannan under a gift deed dated 02.09.2010. Thereafter, the said Smt. Geetha K. Kannan returned the said property to Sri. K. Periyandavan in terms of gift deed dated 27.08.2011. Later, Sri. K. Periyandavan gifted the same to his son Sri. Shakthivadivel under a gift deed dated 24.02.2016. The said Sri. Shakthivadivel sold the aforesaid property to petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 05.12.2018. The khata of the property was purportedly transferred to the name of the petitioner who claims that he has paid the property tax. It is claimed that after obtaining possession of the property from Sri. Shakthivadivel, the petitioner demolished the old building constructed on the aforesaid property and constructed a dwelling house after obtaining a plan from the competent authority on 09.03.2021. The petitioner claimed that he being the absolute owner of the aforesaid property has paid the property tax. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 (iv) A notification was then issued by the Government of Karnataka under Section 4 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 declaring that O.M.B.R area lies within the peripheral jurisdiction of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP), later known as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Thereafter, the said property was transferred to BBMP in the year 1995. The petitioner contends that the respondent had issued a notice dated 24.09.2011 under Section 33 of the BDA Act to the owners of some of the properties in the same layout including Sri. K. Periyandavan to recover possession. The said notice/s was/were challenged by the Sri. K. Periyandavan and other owners of land in W.P.Nos.38306– 308/2011. This Court in terms of an Order dated 12.10.2012, allowed the writ petitions and held that the petitioners therein were in settled possession and that the respondent - BDA cannot take possession of the properties without following the due process of law as provided under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1974') or by filing an appropriate suit. This was upheld by the Division Bench of this - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 Court in Writ Appeal Nos.793-795/2013. The Division Bench in terms of its judgment dated 05.04.2014 passed in the said writ appeals, observed that it was open for the respondent herein to take action in accordance with law. The respondent - BDA then filed SLP (Civil) Nos.21300-21302/2015 challenging the judgment dated 05.04.2014 which were dismissed. However, on a submission made by the petitioners therein (BDA) that they would proceed against the unauthorized occupants under the Act, 1974, liberty was reserved and it was observed that in such an event, none of the observations made in any of the judgments in the said case would come in the way of the respondent - BDA. (v) The petitioner claims that Sri. K. Periyandavan expired on 22.10.2019. The ownership of the property in question was transferred by Sri. K. Periyandavan in favour of his son i.e., Sri. Shakthivadivel in the year 2016 vide registered gift deed dated 20.04.2016. Thereafter, Sri. Shakthivadivel sold the property in question to the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 05.12.2018. Therefore, the property in question stands in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner contends - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 that the respondent - BDA has issued a show-cause notice dated 04.10.2021 to Sri. K. Periyandavan under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1974, calling upon him to show cause as to why the order of eviction should not be passed and further called upon him to appear before it on 21.10.2021 at 12.00 noon to produce evidence, if any. The said show-cause notice was affixed on the wall of the property in question and it was only in December, 2021, the petitioner came to know about the said notice being issued against deceased - K. Periyandavan. Again, the respondent No.2 has issued provisional order dated 18.01.2022 under Section 33(1) of BDA Act to the deceased - K. Periyandavan to show cause as to why the structure constructed on the property in question should not be demolished. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acquisition of the petition schedule property was initiated in the year 1977 under Section 17 of the BDA Act, followed by a final notification dated 13.11.1980. He, therefore, contends that the proceedings initiated by the respondent - - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 BDA in the year 2021 to recover possession of the site in question under the provisions of the Act, 1974 is barred by the law of limitation. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kaluram and Another [(1976) 3 SCC 407]. He further submitted that notice dated 04.10.2021 was issued to a dead person and is therefore, non-est in the eyes of law. He further submits that the impugned provisional order was issued to Sri. K. Periyandavan, who was dead and therefore, the petitioner did not have effective notice of the proceedings. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 33(1) of the BDA Act, is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent - BDA has taken possession of the land measuring 06 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.27 of Banaswadi village on 09.02.1983 and the acquisition is complete in all respects. He contends that a notification in this regard is issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 15.03.1983. She contends that K. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 Periyandavan is an unauthorised occupant, who was occupying the land belonging to the respondent - BDA and therefore, the respondent - BDA is entitled to take over possession of the property in question under the Act, 1974. She contends that this action was taken pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. Nos.21300- 21302/2015. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Amongst the two contentions urged in support of this petition, the first contention that the provisional order was passed against a dead person and therefore, the petitioner did not have an opportunity to file his objections, is a formidable one and merits consideration. No person in this country can be deprived of his right of being heard, that too in respect of a matter which has the consequence of loosing rights over property. Consequently, the impugned provisional order dated 18.01.2022 deserves to be set at nought. As regards the contention that the proceedings are barred by limitation, the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010035382022 NC: 2026:KHC:40009 WP No. 1223 of 2022 same has to be urged before the respondent - BDA, who shall consider the same objectively and pass appropriate orders. 7. Hence, the petition is allowed-in-part. The impugned provisional order 18.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 33(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.14, 4th Main, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi Village, Bengaluru, Ward No.88/280/15 is set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 20.08.2026 at 3.00 p.m. and file his objections. The respondent No.2 shall proceed to consider the objections and take further proceedings against petitioner as provided under Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, in accordance with law. All contentions are left open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34