- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 2878 OF 2014 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560 020. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020 APPELLANTS NOs.1 & 2 ARE BEING THE DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE SAME AUTHORITY, BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARANATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SMT. LATHA HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O A.M. HANUMANTHEGOWDA R/AT NO. 164/1 SRI LAKSHMI NURSERY FARM ULLALU BASTHI VILLAGE ULLALU POST, 100 FEET ROAD 4TH BLOCK, SIR M. VISHVESHWARIAH LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 056 3. A.M. HANUMANTHEGOWDA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 164/1 SRI. LAKSHMI NURSERY FARM ULLALU BASTHI VILLAGE ULLALU POST 100 FEET ROADM 4TH BLOCK SIR M. VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 056 4. SRI S.R. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE RUDRAIAH R/AT SOOLIKERE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 060 5. SRI S.P. MANGALA JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O RAGHU RISHI POOJA, NO.27 NEAR DEEPA NURSING HOME - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE - 37 6. SRI B.V. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE VEERA KEMPAIAH R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 7. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE CHANAN MARAPPA R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 8. SRI RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE CHANAN MARAPPA R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 9. THIMMARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE CHANAN MARAPPA R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 10. 10(a) NAGARAJU SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. HANUMAKKA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 10(b) ANJAN S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 10(c). KIRAN KUMAR S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT No.10(a) to (c) R/AT KRISHNA SAGARA VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALROE SOUTH TALUK 11. SRI DASEGOWDA S/O CHIKKA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MOODALA MANE NO. 95, ISEC MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI BANGALORE - 72 12. SRI C. JAGADEESH S/O CHIKKA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MOODALA MANE NO. 95 ISEC MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI BANGALORE -72 13. SRI SHIVU S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE - 60. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 14. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT BHEEMANAKUPPE RAMOHALLI POST KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1, SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO 4, SRI D.C. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO 10 (a to c) RESPONDENT NOs.11,12 & 14 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O. DATED 18.04.2023, NOTICE TO R-5 & R-13 IS HELD SUFFICENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.56948- 56960/2013 & 6860-6861/2014, AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application - I.A.2/2017, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed by respondent Nos.6 to 10 praying that the present appeal be dismissed insofar as the said applicants are concerned. 3. The applicants (respondent Nos.6 to 10) state that the subject lands (lands falling in Survey No.38/1 and Survey No.38/2 of K. Krishnasagara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk) were notified for acquisition under the additional preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009. However, the final notification for acquisition of the subject lands was not issued. Consequently, no award for acquiring the said land was also passed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 4. The said applicants had preferred writ petitions being WP.No.5471-5472/2013, impugning the additional preliminary notification. The said petition was allowed and the preliminary notification was set aside. 5. The appellant (BDA) preferred an appeal against the order dated 28.07.2014 passed in the said writ petition as well as other connected petitions. The appeal of the BDA (WA.No.2816/2014 - LA-BDA), came to be dismissed by an order dated 15.09.2023, following an earlier order in the case of BDA v. K.N. Gopal (W.A.No.2000/2016 ; disposed of on 28.07.2023). 6. The applicants state that notwithstanding that their writ petition had been allowed, they inadvertently filed another writ petition along with certain other writ petitioners being WP.Nos.56948-56960/2013, which came to be allowed by virtue of the order dated 01.08.2014, which is impugned in the present appeal. They contend that since they have already succeeded in their challenge to the preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009, the present appeal, be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 7. It is apparent from the aforesaid contention that the applicants could not have maintained another writ petition for the same cause of action. As noted above, it is also their contention that the second writ petition was filed by oversight. Therefore, the impugned order in so far as the applicants are concerned is required to be set aside as the writ petition was not maintainable. It is so directed. 8. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that since the additional preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009 has been set aside by the Court in another proceedings, which have become final, the present appeal does not survive. He, however seeks liberty for BDA to issue a fresh notification for acquiring the subject land. 10. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present appeal is disposed of. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7554-DB WA No. 2878 of 2014 11. It is needless to state that the BDA is not precluded from taking fresh steps for acquiring the subject land, albeit in accordance with law. 12. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23