Karnataka High Court
Suryakanth Nagamarpalli vs Bengaluru Development Authority on 17 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 25010 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 34061 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)
IN WP No. 25010/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LALITHA RAJAN
W/O LATE RAJAN R.D.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/A NO. 3, 8TH B MAIN ROAD,
SRINIDHI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE 560 097.
Digitally signed
by VASANTHA 2. SRI. SURESH RAO GHODKE
KUMARY B K S/O N. MADHAVA RAO GHODKE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
3. SRI. M. SANJAY KUMAR GHODKE
S/O N. MADHAVA RAO GHODKE,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PETITIONER No.2 & 3 ARE R/A NO. 22,
BASAPPA LINE, BSA ROAD,
TANNERY ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE 560 005.
PETITIONER No.2 & 3 ARE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. B. RAMALINGAPPA
S/O LATE S.R. BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/A NO. C-32, SUMIT APARTMENTS,
SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 052.
4. SMT. B.S. NAGARATHNA
W/O B.R. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/A NO. 4147/ D7, 8TH CROSS ROAD,
B BLOCK, 2ND MAIN, RAJAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE 560 021.
5. SRI. C.N. SUBRAMANYAM
S/O LATE H. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A NO. 1/1C, CAMBRIDGE 2ND CROSS ROAD,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008.
6. PRAKASH.A
S/O A. MAHASENA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/A QUARTERS NO. JVD1,
VIGNANAPURA, IISC CAMPUS,
R.M.V EXTENSION 2ND STAGE,
NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE 560 094.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 020.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. JUSTICE KESHAVANARAYANA COMMITTEE
KRISHI BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE SIMILAR NATURE
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REPORT BEARING KNKC No.
142/2022 DATED 29.05.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT COMMITTEE (VIDE ANNEXURE-L) IN SO FAR AS
IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION OF THEIR SITES
BEARING No. 51, SITE No. 34, 43 AND 44 SITES No. 48 AND
49, SITE No. 50 AND SITE No. 2 FORMED OUT OF LANDS
BEARING Sy. No. 53, 58/1, 58/2 AND 59 SITUATED AT
SRIRAMAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK IS CONCERNED, ETC.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 34061/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SURYAKANTH NAGAMARPALLI
S/O LATE SRI GURUPADAPPA NAGAMARAPALLI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO. 322, 5TH CROSS,
3RD MAIN, OPP. BDA COMPLEX,
RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST,
SANKEY ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 020.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. JUSTICE KESHAVANARAYANA COMMITTEE
KRISHI BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R3;
SRI. MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE SIMILAR
NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REPORT BEARING
NO.KNKC NO.142/2022 DATED 29/05/2025 PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE (VIDE ANNEXURE-G)
IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR
REGULARIZATION OF THE SITES BEARING V.P KATHA
NO.79, HOUSE LIST NO.53/1 AND 53/2 (SITES NOS. 36,
37, 38, 39, 40 AND 41) MEASURING EAST TO WEST 80
FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 120 FEET, TOTALLY
MEASURING 9,600 SQQ. FEET SITUATED AT SRIRAMPURA
VILLAGE, YEALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE FORMED OUT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NOS.
53, 58/1, 58/2 AND 59 OF SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE IS
CONCERNED, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petitions have been filed impugning the Report bearing No.KNKCNo.142/2022 dated 29.05.2025 submitted by Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') in respect of the lands allegedly forming part of Survey Nos.53, 58/1, 58/2 and 59 situated at Sriramapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
2. The prayers made in writ petition No.25010/2025 are as under:-
"(a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order in the similar nature quashing the impugned Report bearing No. KNKC No.142 / 2022 dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 4th Respondent Committee (vide Annexure-L) in so far as it relates to rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners for regularization of their Sites bearing No.51, Site No.34, 43 and 44, Sites No.48 & 49, Site No.50 and Site No.2 formed out of lands bearing Sy.
No.53, 58/1, 58/2 and 59 situated at Sriramapura -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is concerned;
(b) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the 1st Respondent BDA to consider the applications filed by the petitioners (vide Annexure-J1 to J4) and pass appropriate orders for regularization of their sites bearing No.51, 34, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50 measuring 30 x 40 feet each and Site No. 2 measuring 39 + 45 / 2 x 30 feet situated at Sriramapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in terms of Resolution dated 18.4.2017 (vide Annexure-P) within a date to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
3. The prayers made in writ petition No.34061/2025 are as under:-
"(a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order in the similar nature quashing the impugned Report bearing No. KNKC No.142/2022 dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 4th Respondent Committee (vide Annexure-G) in so far as it relates to rejection of the application filed by the petitioners for regularization of the Sites bearing V.P Katha No. 79, House List No. 53/1 & 53/2 (Sites No. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41) measuring East to West:
80 feet and North to South: 120 feet, totally -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR measuring 9,600 Sq. Feet situated at Sriramapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore formed out of the land bearing Sy. No. 53, 58/1, 58/2 and 59 of Srirampura Village is concerned;
(b) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the 1st Respondent BDA to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders for regularization of the sites bearing V.P Katha No. 79, House List No. 53/1 & 53/2 (Sites No. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41) measuring East to West: 80 feet and North to South: 120 feet, totally measuring 9,600 Sq. Feet situated at Sriramapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore formed out of the land bearing Sy. No. 53, 58/1, 58/2 and 59 of Srirampura Village in terms of Resolution dated 18.4.2017 (vide Annexure-J) within a date to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court"
4. Backgrounds of constituting the K.N. Keshavanarayana Committee have been taken note of in the judgment and order dated 20.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.9435/2023 which are extracted herein below :--9-
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR "BACKGROUND:
2. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 17(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act') for acquisition of 3339 acres of land for formation of Arkavati Layout on 03.02.2003. A modified Preliminary Notification came to be issued on 16.09.2003 showing the extent of land as 3839 acres 12 guntas situated in the 16 villages including Rachenahalli.
3. Notices under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act were issued. No objection was received in respect of 91 acres 7 guntas, however, objections received in respect of 2658 acres were rejected. The BDA resolved to delete 1089 acres 12 guntas of land and to obtain sanction for 2750 acres for forming the Arkavati Layout. Accordingly, the scheme formulated came to be sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka under Section 18(3) of the BDA Act for 2750 acres of land. The Final Notification dated 23.02.2004 was issued for acquisition of 2750 acres of land situated in the 16 villages including Rachenahalli village. The award came to be passed to an extent of 1618.38 acres. The BDA claims to have taken possession in respect of 1459.37 acres of private land and 459.16 acres of Government land
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR and in all, 1919.13 acres of land. The BDA also claims to have formed the layout by carving 14103 plots/sites apart from developing the roads, drains, civic amenity sites etc.
4. The said land acquisition proceedings came to be questioned before this Court by filing writ petitions on several grounds in W.P.Nos.51119- 51132/2004 and other connected matters. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by declaring that the BDA has no jurisdiction to frame developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area amongst granting other reliefs. This order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A.No.2625/2005 and connected matters. Since some of the writ petitions had also been filed challenging the acquisition of lands for formation of Arkavati Layout on the grounds which had been upheld by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeals and the writ petitions which were filed after passing of the order by the learned Single Judge were taken up together for consideration by the Division Bench. The Division Bench in the matter of THE COMMISSIONER, BDA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY reported in ILR 2006 KAR 318, by the order dated 25.11.2005 allowed the writ appeals filed by the BDA and the State and set aside the order of the learned Single
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR Judge dated 15.04.2005 and dismissed the challenge laid to the acquisition of lands for formation of Arkavati Layout. The acquisition of lands was upheld by the Division Bench subject to the conditions stipulated thereunder.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, BDA (supra) has upheld the acquisition of lands for formation of Arkavati Layout subject to the following conditions:-
(a) In so far as the site owners are concerned they are entitled to the following reliefs:--
(i) These site owners/writ petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of Sites] Rules, 1984 within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they have agreed not to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement.
(ii) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR were the petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA within a period of two months to enable BDA to verify the same.
(iii) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30′ × 40′ in Arkavathi Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten year domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore.
(iv) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment. [To enable petitioners to know the amount of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay].
(v) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site.
(vi) If any of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20′ × 30′ sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of lands. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites.
(vii) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders).
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR (D) In so far as the land owners excluding the site owners, are entitled to the following reliefs:--
(i) All the petitioners who are the land owners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area; (b) they are totally built up;
(c) properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions (d) nursery lands; (e) who have set-up factories (f) their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their contentions within one month from the date of this order.
It is made clear that the BDA shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the land owners whose lands, are notified for
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR acquisition, notified and whose objections were upheld and no final notification is issued.
In the event the BDA comes to the conclusion that the lands of those persons are similarly placed, then to exclude those lands from acquisition.
(ii) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 30 days from the date of this order and thereafter the BDA shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
(iii) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for denotifying or exemption sought for are considered their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the applications, in the light of the aforesaid directions, if the lands are not excluded then the BDA is at liberty to proceed with the acquisition."
6. The order passed by the Division Bench dated 25.11.2005 came to be challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after considering the rival contentions, in the matter of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB
WP No. 25010 of 2025
C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025
HC-KAR
BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS VS
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in ([2010] 7 SCC 129) (hereinafter referred to as 'BONDU RAMASWAMY's case') upheld the decision of the Division Bench subject to BDA's action to take certain corrective measures by requiring it to re-examine certain aspects and provide an option to the land losers to secure some additional benefit as an alternative to accept the acquisition. In other words, the directions issued by the Division Bench was affirmed, subject to further directions and clarifications. The Supreme Court also observed that all allotments made by the BDA either by forming layouts or by way of bulk allotments would be subject to the modified directions issued.
7. In BONDU RAMASWAMY's case (supra), while upholding the judgment of the Division Bench, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 160, gave further directions and clarifications as under:
"160. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications:
(i) In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and Sriramapura, BDA is directed to reconsider the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR objections to the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition. BDA has to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed.
(ii) In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for forming self-contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand-alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected lands in other villages. Similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR
(iii) BDA shall give an option to each writ petitioner whose land has been acquired for Arkavathi Layout:
(a) to accept allotment of 15% (fifteen per cent) of the land acquired from him, by way of developed plots, in lieu of compensation (any fractions in excess of 15% may be charged prevailing rates of allotment);
OR
(b) in cases where the extent of land acquired exceeds half an acre, to claim in addition to compensation (without prejudice to seek reference if he is not satisfied with the quantum), allotment of a plot measuring 30′ × 40′ for every half acre of land acquired at the prevailing allotment price.
(iv) Any allotment made by BDA, either by forming layouts or by way of bulk allotments, will be subject to the above."
8. Pursuant to the said clarifications and directions issued by the Supreme Court, the BDA had undertaken the exercise and had recommended certain lands to be excluded from the entire acquisition by submitting a re-modified scheme for approval by the State Government and the State Government, in terms of the order dated 03.04.2014, had approved the same.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. By virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court and keeping in view the additional directions issued, the State Government had issued a Notification dated 18.03.2011 declaring that the land owners would be entitled for allotment of developed plots in the ratio of 60:40 in 55% of the land acquired after deducting the land to be utilized for the civic amenity purposes.
10. It appears that the BDA had conducted an enquiry pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case (supra). The applications and the representations submitted by the various applicants were considered and a report was placed before the Board of the BDA. The BDA had approved the report and restricted the total area to 176.07 acres of land for acquisition by deleting 983.33 acres vide Resolution No.79/2013 dated 12.02.2013. The deleted lands measuring 983.33 acres included 198 acres 20 guntas of denotified land and 83 acres 8 guntas of land in respect of which acquisition proceedings had already been quashed in different cases. The said report was submitted by the BDA to the State Government and the State Government issued a modified scheme and thereafter, the Notification dated 18.06.2014 came to be issued
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR under which, an extent of 1766 acres and 7 guntas of land was sought to be acquired after deleting 983.33 acres of land from the acquisition proceedings.
11. As there were allegations of large scale corruption and arbitrary and mala fide exercise of powers by the authorities in deleting the lands for considerations other than legal and valid and including the lands which should have been deleted, a number of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court in Writ Petition No.51929/2014 connected with batch of other writ petitions challenging the Notification dated 18.06.2014.
12. The learned Single Judge, having considered the contentions and finding some substance in the allegations, vide judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.51929/2014 and other connected writ petitions constituted a three-member Committee under the Chairmanship of former Judge of this Court namely, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana giving the mandate to the Committee to examine the claims afresh and ensure that there would be clear and absolute transparency in the said process and also to look into the various aspects of exclusion/inclusion of lands in the final notification. This Court rejected the challenge to the preliminary
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR and final notifications as well as the Notification dated 18.06.2014 and the acquisition of the lands for formation of Arkavati Layout was upheld. This Court disposed of the W.P.No.3178/2017 and other similarly placed writ petitions by directing the BDA to place the representations of all the applicants/petitioners submitted for allotment of sites for being considered by the Committee constituted. It was also made clear that all such applications which were filed for allotment of sites under any of the categories specified in the order of the Division Bench or the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case (supra) should be considered by the Committee, keeping in mind directions issued thereunder and subject to the order passed therein. The deletion or denotification recommended by the BDA or made by the BDA or by the Government would be subject to the certification or approval by the Committee to the effect that such deletion of land was in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench and the directions/clarifications issued by the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case (supra).
13. This Court made it clear that the applicants/petitioners who were claiming relief based on the sale transactions which had taken place subsequent to the issuance of the Preliminary
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR Notification dated 03.02.2003 would not be entitled to any protection or relief whatsoever and their claim was rejected. It was also made clear that neither the Committee nor the BDA would be required to examine or consider the claim where dispute with regard to the title was involved.
14. The direction Nos.(xi) to (xiv) which are relevant, are extracted hereunder:-
"(xi)The applicants/writ petitioners who are claiming relief based on sale transactions which has taken place subsequent to issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003, would not be entitled to any protection or relief whatsoever and their claim stands rejected.
(xii) It is also made clear that neither the Committee nor the BDA would be required to examine or consider the claim where dispute with regard to title is involved.
(xiii) The BDA shall allot the site to all such applicants in whose favour allotment had been made and later cancelled on the ground of same site having been allotted to two (2) persons or cancelled for whatsoever reason like it has fallen in the land deleted from acquisition and like reasons.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR
(xiv) All deletions or denotification recommended by the BDA or made by BDA or by the Government, is subject to the certification or approval by the Committee to the effect that such deletion of land is in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench and directions/clarifications issued by the Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case."
15. The Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana, Former Judge of this Court, was also required to examine inter alia as to whether the deletion of lands from acquisition made by the BDA was within the parameters fixed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case by examining every such deletion made on case to case basis, particularly with reference to the deletion made on the ground of adjacent lands having been deleted. The Committee has been mandated to consider all such representations received by the BDA pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench and the judgment in BONDU RAMASWAMY's case by the Supreme Court and submit a report to the BDA as to whether such claim would fall within the exceptions carved out under the aforesaid judgment for deleting the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR 0lands or not and thereafter, the BDA should take steps to delete or include such lands from the acquisition."
FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES :
5. The petitioners' lands were included in the Final Notification dated 18.06.2014 issued by the State Government for the formation of Arkavathy Layout.
IN W.P.No.25010/2025:
6. The petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased site No.51 on the basis of the sale deed dated 09.06.1994, executed by one Sri Rajanna and Smt. Muniyamma in favour of Sri R. D. Rajan, the husband of the petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 purchased site Nos.34, 43, and 44 vide sale deed dated 23.09.1994. Petitioner No.4 purchased site Nos.48 and 49 vide sale deed dated 30.03.1995. Petitioner No.5 purchased site No.50 vide sale deed dated 09.06.1994. Petitioner No.6 purchased site No.2 vide sale deed dated 19.01.1995. All the said sale
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR deeds have been executed by Shri Rajanna and Smt. Muniyamma.
IN W.P.No.34061/2025:
7. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of sites bearing V.P.Katha No.79, House List Nos.53/1 and 53/2 (Site Nos.36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41) measuring East to West 80 feet and North to South 120 feet totally measuring 9,600 sq.ft. situated at Sriramapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
8. One Sri. Sanjaya G. Chugh claims to have purchased the above said sites from Sri Rajanna and Smt. Muniyamma vide sale deed 13.11.1992. In turn, the petitioner's father-Sri Gurupadappa Nagamarpalli had purchased the said sites from Sri. Sanjaya G. Chugh, the previous owner vide sale deed dated 07.06.2009. After the death of Sri Gurupadappa Nagamarpalli, the father of
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR the petitioner, petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the above stated lands.
9. As there were large scale allegations of mala fide exercise of the powers by the State Authorities in exclusion and inclusion of the lands in the Final Notification dated 18.06.2014, this Court constituted the Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Keshavanarayana (Former Judge of this Court), to examine the validity and legality of exclusion and inclusion of the lands in question.
10. The petitioners had approached the Committee for exclusion of their lands/sites formed in Survey Nos.53, 58/1, 58/2, 59 and House List No.53/1 and 53/2 situated at Sriramapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as mentioned herein above. The sites formed in survey Nos.53, 58/1, 58/2 and 59 have been sold under various sale deeds, which were executed by Sri Rajanna and Smt. Muniyamma.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. The Committee has heard the petitioners and examined the records as well as the evidence produced by the petitioners. The Committee has examined the sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid lands and has recorded a finding that the sketch of the revenue layout formed in the aforesaid lands along with Survey No.62 would indicate that in all 74 sites have been formed.
12. The petitioners' claims based on the alleged sale deeds have not been found genuine inasmuch as the sale deeds do not mention the survey number and katha number. In the absence of clear identities of the lands in the sale deeds, the petitioners' claim that they are the owners of the land in question, has been disbelieved by the Committee.
13. We have also perused the sale deeds on the basis of which the petitioners' are claiming to be the owners of the property. However, none of the sale deeds mention the
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR survey number and katha number. Therefore, the subject matter of sale deeds is unidentifiable. When the petitioners' land is not identifiable, their claim that they are the owners of the sites formed out of survey Nos.53, 58/1, 58/2 and 59, is without any basis.
14. In view thereof, the Committee had dismissed the claim of the petitioners. A fact finding Committee which was appointed by this Court to inquire about the legality and validity of the exclusion and inclusion of the lands and the said Committee after examining the evidence and the material brought on record, has recorded a finding of fact.
Such a finding of fact is not likely to be interfered with by us in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. We find no merit and substance in these writ petitions, hence both the writ petitions are dismissed.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9640-DB WP No. 25010 of 2025 C/W WP No. 34061 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. In view of dismissal of the petitions, pending interim applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NG CT:SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4