Karnataka High Court
Sri Chennakeshava .S vs Bangalore Development Authority (Bda) on 20 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48113
WP No. 23061 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.23061 OF 2022 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHENNAKESHAVA .S
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O (LATE) D.L .SRINIVAS,
R/AT NO.230, MAHAVEER CORNER APARTMENTS,
KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI,
BANGALORE-560 060. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA)
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH 2. THE TAHASHILDAR
COURT OF BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.
3. CHOODAPPA
S/O DEVAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NAGEGOWDANAPALYA,
B.M. KAVAL, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 062. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-2;
V/O DATED 03.09.2025 NOTICE TO R-3 HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48113
WP No. 23061 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO HAVE 4 ACRES OF
LAND CULLED OUT OF SURVEY NO.107, BLOCK NO.11 OF B.M.
KAVAL, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, AND MARK THE SAME BY METES
AND BOUNDS AND RELEASE THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER, AS THE SOLE SURVIVING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE LAKSHMAIAH AND HIS SON SRINIVAS, AFTER COLLECTING
SUCH BETTERMENT FEE, AS MAY BE LEGITIMATELY DUE, IN
RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"a. To have 4 acres of land culled out of survey No.107, Block No.11 of B.M. Kaval, Bangalore South Taluk, and mark the same by metes and bounds and release the same in favour of the petitioner, as the sole surviving legal representative of late Lakshmaiah and his son Srinivas, after collecting such Betterment fee, as may be legitimately due, in respect of the said land.
a(1). Declaration to declare that, the land bearing Sy.No.107/P20 measuring to an extent of 4 acres of B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, stands -3- NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR excluded / dropped from the acquisition proceedings by virtue of the Gazette Notification dated 12-09-2003 A bearing No.BEM APRA: VIBHUSWA ΑΑ:A4:PR:834:2003-04, Bangalore dated 12-09-2003 as per ANNEXURE-H & consequently restraining the respondents authority from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the aforesaid property.
a(2) or in alternative, direct the 1st Respondent to determine the compensation to the subject property as per Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 to the property of the petitioner.
b. To direct the Respondent, through its Commissioner, to initiate appropriate criminal and civil investigation as to the actions of the personnel who were involved in the acquisition proceedings, pertaining to the subject land of the petitioner and particularly with reference to the release of compensation amount to the Third respondent and also the release of the four Incentive house sites to the said respondent and to submit a report, in due course.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR C. Grant such other Writ, Order or direction, as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The schedule property comprises of 4 acres carved out of Survey No.107, Block No.11, situated at B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The entire Survey No.107 originally measured 53 acres 12 guntas, was classified as Government land and divided into 13 blocks for public auction by the Deputy Commissioner under an official memorandum dated 04.06.1951. In the said auction, the petitioner's grandfather Sri Lakshmaiah emerged as a successful bidder for 04 acres forming Block No.11. Pursuant to the auction, the Tahsildar issued the grant certificate on 28.07.1951, confirming the sale in Lakshmaiah's favour, followed by issuance of saguvali chit. Subsequently, the revenue records stood in the name of Lakshmaiah. After computerization of the revenue records by the State, the name of Lakshmaiah continued to appear. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR
3. On 27.09.2002, respondent No.3-Choodappa filed an application before the Special Tahsildar seeking mutation of the land in his name on the basis of an unregistered 'gift deed dated 10.11.1981', said to have been executed by late Lakshmaiah. However, Lakshmaiah had died on 30.09.1978, as evidenced by the death certificate at Annexure-C.
4. The Special Tahsildar proceeded to accept the unregistered document 'gift deed' and passed an order dated 14.11.2002, directing change of khata by deleting the name of Lakshmaiah and mutating the name of respondent No.3. In the meanwhile, on 07.11.2002, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a preliminary notification under Sections 17 (1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act ('the BDA Act' for short) proposing acquisition of 1,532 acres 17 guntas in several villages, including B.M. Kaval (194.15 acres) for the formation of proposed Banashankari VI stage layout. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR The 4 acres of land belonging to Lakshmaiah appeared at Sl. No.209 of the preliminary notification.
5. The BDA issued a final notification dated 10.09.2003 under Section 19 of the BDA Act, in which Lakshmaiah's 4 acres of land were not included. Further, the BDA issued a notification under Section 18 (3) dated 19.09.2003, wherein Lakshmaiah's land was specifically excluded/dropped from acquisition and instead subjected it to betterment charges under Section 20. In the meeting and resolution of the BDA it was recorded that 4 acres of land had been left out and would be released to the original owner on payment of betterment charges.
6. It is averred that despite the statutory exclusion, and despite the land not forming part of the final notification, the BDA officials proceeded to treat it as 'acquired land' on the basis of the fraudulent revenue mutation in favour of respondent No.3 and the BDA disbursed `44,09,660/- as compensation to respondent -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR No.3 through Indian Overseas Bank by cheque dated 01.06.2004 and additionally, allotted four 40 x 60 feet house sites to him as 'incentive sites', even though the land was never acquired under the final notification and respondent No.3 had no semblance of ownership.
7. The petitioner's father, Srinivas, son of Lakshmaiah, upon discovering the fraud, approached this Court in W.P. No.8783/2008, where the BDA falsely represented that:
i. The land was acquired and ii. The entire compensation had been deposited before the Civil Court under Sections 30 and Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the LA Act' for short) as on 22.02.2005.
Based on this, this Court directed the petitioner's father to approach the Civil Court to establish his claim. Subsequently, the petitioner's father discovered that:
a. The land was never included in the Section 19 final notification;-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR b. It was officially left out under Section 18 (3) and;
c. Despite this, the BDA had fraudulently released the compensation and allotted sites to respondent No.3 in collusion.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner's father challenged the fraudulent revenue entry before the Assistant Commissioner, who by order dated 19.11.2013, set aside the Special Tahsildar's mutation order. Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar passed an order dated 21.05.2014, restoring the name of Srinivas (petitioner's father) and deleting the name of respondent No.3.
9. The petitioner's father filed W.P. No.46644/2011, wherein the BDA again made a counter statements, but ultimately admitted that the mutation in favour of respondent No.3 had been wrongly entered. In W.A. No.444/2013 preferred by the petitioner's father, the Division Bench of this Court reserved liberty to him to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR challenge the acquisition proceedings/notifications. The petitioner's father died on 21.10.2019 and after the petitioner obtaining the records, discovered the fraudulent disbursement of compensation and illegal allotment of incentive sites in favour of respondent No.3. Despite the land being excluded from the acquisition in 2003 and despite the revenue authority restoring the petitioner's name, the BDA continues to interfere with the petitioner's possession, treating the land as if it were an acquired land and is now demanding repayment of compensation received fraudulently by respondent No.3, which compensation the petitioner has never received. Hence, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the land stands excluded under Section 18 (3) notification and a writ of mandamus restraining the BDA from interfering with the petitioner's possession and direction to initiate criminal and departmental action to recover public money and undo the fraudulent allotments made in favour of respondent No.3.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. The BDA has filed their statement of objections and contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, suffers from gross delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner's father was aware in the year 2008 of the compensation paid to respondent No.3, but no steps were taken for almost 18 years after completion of acquisition.
11. The BDA further disputes the petitioner's title and asserts that the alleged grant certificate, 'does not conclusively identify the specific 4 acres or establish Lakshmaiah's exclusive ownership, as 100 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.107 had been auctioned to seven persons and the petitioner has produced no proof of succession exclusively in his favour. It is averred that the preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 and final notification dated 09.09.2003 validly acquired 75 acres 29 guntas in Survey No.107 of B.M. Kaval Village and that as per the revenue records, the notified khatedar for the 4 acres was one
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR Choodappa, whose name stood in the RTC and mutation entries pursuant to the Special Tahsildar's order dated 14.11.2002. Hence, the acquisition was lawfully continued in his name.
12. It is further averred that the award has been passed, approved, and possession has been taken and notification under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act was published and further asserted that the BDA has formed layout long back allotting sites to the public. It is admitted that respondent No.3 has received `44,09,660/- as compensation on 17.06.2004 and received the incentive sites. They denied the fraud, stating that all actions were taken strictly on the revenue entries then in force.
13. With respect to the petitioner's reliance on notification under Section 20 of the BDA Act regarding betterment taxes, it is stated that such notification applied only to the un-acquired portions and the entry of Lakshmaiah's name was a mistake, which was
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR subsequently, clarified before this Court. The Division Bench, in writ appeal, has already held that the acquisition proceedings have been completed, and no NOC can be granted. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot reopen the issues that have already settled in the earlier proceedings, the land was validly acquired, the compensation has been disbursed, the possession was taken and the layout has already been formed and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel along with Sri R. Subramanya, Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harisha A.S., learned AGA for respondent No.2 and Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Though respondent No.3 has been duly served with notice, he has chosen to remain absent.
15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the foundation of respondent No.3's claim is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR an unregistered gift deed dated 10.11.1981, which is a fabricated document allegedly executed by Lakshmaiah. The said deed is legally impossible since Lakshmaiah died on 30.09.1978, and therefore, no instrument could have been executed by him thereafter. The gift deed is void ab initio, inadmissible, and incapable of conferring any right, title, or interest. The Special Tahsildar passed an order on 14.11.2002 solely placing reliance on the said document- the 'alleged gift deed', deleting Lakshmaiah's name and mutating the property in the name of respondent No.3, without conducting any enquiry or verifying the genuineness or execution of the gift deed.
16. It is contended that although the preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 included Survey No.107 and showed the name of the petitioner's grandfather, Lakshmaiah as kathedar, the Section 19 final notification dated 10.09.2003 did not include Lakshmaiah's land measuring 4 acres and however, the notified kathedar was shown as Choodappa, whose name appeared only in the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR final notification and not in the preliminary notification. Further, the notification issued under Section 18 (3) on 19.09.2003 expressly dropped / excluded the petitioner's land from acquisition and placed it under the betterment fee regime, indicating that the land never vested with the BDA. Despite the statutory exclusion under the final notification and the Section 18 (3) notification, the BDA officials illegally treated the land as acquired, and released a sum of `44,09,660/- to respondent No.3 and allotted four 40 x 60 sites as 'incentive sites, all in collusion with respondent No.3'. It is argued that the BDA's acts constitute fraud on the statue, fraud on the public and fraud on the Court. The Assistant Commissioner and the Special Tahsildar, considering that there is a fraudulent mutation made in favour of Choodappa, set aside the mutation and restored the name of the petitioner's father. The said order has attained finality, conclusively establishing that respondent No.3 never had a title. Taking this Court to W.P. Nos.8783/2008 and 46644/2011, it is
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR contended that in the earlier proceedings, the BDA has misled the Court by suppressing the fact that the land was excluded under Section 19 notification. The present writ petition is filed in light of the liberty being granted to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Despite the land not being acquired, the BDA is still attempting to interfere with the petitioner's possession under the guise that it forms part of the acquired land.
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the BDA contends that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay, as the petitioner's father knew about respondent No.3 having received compensation in the year 2008 itself, yet, no action was taken for nearly 18 years. It is submitted that the acquisition is complete and final by way of preliminary notification followed by final notification, award having been passed, possession having been taken, and the Section 16 (2) notification having been issued. It is asserted that the entire acquisition process stands concluded and the sites have been allotted and the same
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR has been recorded in W.A. No.444/2013. The revenue authorities corrected the entries only in the year 2013-14, while the compensation has already been paid to respondent No.3 in 2004 and acquisition had long since attained finality. It is contended that the petitioner's land was never part of the left-out land and that appearance of Lakshmaiah's name in the Section 20 notification was an error already clarified before the Division Bench in W.P. Nos.46644/2011 as well as in W.A. No.444/2013 and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
18. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the land measuring 4 acres in Survey No.107 Block No.11 of B.M. Kaval Village, purchased by the petitioner's grandfather in the year 1951 auction and later fraudulently mutated in favour of respondent No.3, ever formed part of the lands finally acquired under Section 19 notification dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure-G) and whether the subsequent payment of compensation and allotment of incentive sites to respondent No.3 by the BDA had any statutory basis?"
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR
19. Upon meticulous examination of the statutory notification and revenue proceedings, it becomes evident that Survey No.107 measured 100 acres 30 guntas, of which BDA ultimately acquired only 75 acres 29 guntas under the final notification dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure- G). The remaining 25 acres 1 gunta, including the petitioner's 4 acres in Block No.11, stood expressly excluded / dropped from the acquisition under the notification dated 19.09.2003 issued under Section 18 (3) of the BDA Act, (Annexure-H), wherein the name of the petitioner's grandfather Sri Lakshmaiah appears at Sl. No.124, clearly confirming that the 4 acres falls within the category of left-out land. The record further discloses that the name of Choodappa found its way into the khathedar column of Annexure-G only because the Special Tahsildar, by order dated 14.11.2002 directed deletion of the name of Sri Lakshmaiah, inserting the name of Choodappa on the strength of an unregistered gift deed dated 10.11.1981, purportedly executed by Lakshmaiah, who
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR had in fact died on 30.09.1978. This fraudulent entry, was made after the preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002, but before Section 19 notification dated 09.09.2003, was mechanically adopted in the acquisition records, even though the petitioner's 4 acres did not appear anywhere in the schedule of acquired lands under Annexure-G.
20. The reliance placed by the respondents in Ahuja Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and others1 (Ahuja Industries) and Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2 (Bangalore Development Authority) is wholly misplaced to the present facts.
21. The law is well settled that the acquiring authority is not expected to embark upon a roving or a fishing inquiry into rival claims of title, and the decisions relied upon by the respondents apply where the acquisition authority proceeds on genuine revenue entries in the 1 (2003) 5 SCC 365 2 (2022) 14 SCC 173
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR absence of fraud or manipulation. However, the present case, does not require any such enquiry, what was required for the BDA was only the most basic and minimal verification of sequence of events reflected in the revenue records. The preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 was issued in the name of Sri Lakshmaiah, the petitioner's grandfather, whose name had continuously appeared in the khata, RTC and pahani entries for several decades until November 2002. The alleged name of choodappa came to be entered for the first time only pursuant to the mutation order dated 14.11.2002, passed after the preliminary notification and founded on an unregistered gift deed dated 10.11.1981 said to be executed by Lakshmaiah, who had already died in the year 1978.
22. A bare perusal of the statutory notification would have shown that, under Section 19 final notification dated 09.09.2003 (Annexure-G), the 4 acres of Lakshmaiah's land, petitioner's grandfather did not form part of the acquired land and under Section 18 (3)
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR notification dated 19.03.2003 (Annexure-H) the said 4 acres was expressly dropped from the acquisition and treated as 'left out land'. When the acquisition itself had been dropped and the final notification did not include the petitioner's land at all, the BDA was required at the very minimum to ascertain whether the newly entered name of Choodappa could represent the original khatedar and whether he had any nexus to the land. This verification became all the more necessary when the BDA released a sum of `44,09,660/- and allotted four incentive sites, particularly in a case where the land was never acquired and the mutation was effected only after the issuance of the preliminary notification. The omission to conduct a minimum scrutiny, where the proceedings having already been dropped at Annexure-H, renders the action of the BDA wholly unsustainable. Despite the proceedings having been dropped, despite the land never having vested in the BDA, the respondents released a sum of `44,09,660/- and allotted four incentive sites to a person, who had no
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR semblance of title, action, which the BDA itself acknowledged in Annexure-K, the objections filed in the earlier writ petition. This action was undertaken without statutory authority. Fraud vitiates every administrative act, no rights can accrue from it, and no public authority can shelter behind it and consequently, the BDA's entire action stands vitiated and cannot withhold or withstand the judicial scrutiny and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. It is hereby declared that the land measuring 4 acres in Survey No.107, Block No.11 of B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk standing in the name of the petitioner's grandfather, Sri Lakshmaiah, does not form part of the land acquired under Section 19 final notification dated
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR 09.09.2003 (Annexure-G), and that the said land was expressly dropped from acquisition under the notification dated 19.09.2003 issued under Section 18 (3) of the BDA Act (Annexure-H).
ii. The respondents, including the BDA, are restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession, enjoyment or use of the aforesaid 4 acres, and shall treat the said land as 'not acquired', for the purpose of Banashankari VI Stage Layout Scheme. iii. The BDA shall initiate appropriate action for the recovery of the compensation amount of `44,09,660/- and the four incentive sites wrongly allotted to respondent No.3. iv. The petitioner is at liberty to tender the betterment charges lawfully leviable under Section 20 of the BDA Act, applicable only to the lands classified as left-out land, and
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48113 WP No. 23061 of 2022 HC-KAR upon such payment, the respondents shall process the petitioner's request for entries, records, and endorsements in accordance with law.
v. The Commissioner, BDA, shall initiate criminal or departmental action against the persons, including the officials, responsible for procuring or relying upon the fraudulent mutation dated 14.11.2002, and for the payment of compensation of `44,09,660/- along with the four incentive sites wrongly released in favour of respondent No.3.
Sd/-
______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65