Karnataka High Court
Mr George Philip Kaleekal vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB
WA No. 1665 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. GEORGE PHILIP KALEEKAL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT 'KALEEKAL HOUSE',
EDAYARANMULA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DIST,
KERALA - 689 532.
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRs
1(a). ROSAMMA PHILIP,
W/O LATE. MR. GEORGE PHILIP KALEEKAL,
R/AT 'KALEEKAL HOUSE',
EDAYARANMULA P.O.,
Digitally PATHANAMTHITTA DIST,
signed by
KERALA - 689 532.
REKHA R
Location: 1(b). RIJU PHILIP GEORGE,
High Court
of S/O. LATE. MR. GEORGE PHILIP KALEEKAL,
Karnataka R/AT 'KALEEKAL HOUSE',
EDAYARANMULA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DIST,
KERALA - 689 532.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMA MOORTHY B V., ADVOCATE FOR A1(a)&(b))
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB
WA No. 1665 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, IV
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. K. ABDUL JABBAR,
S/O LATE SHEIK AHMED SAB,
(MAJOR)
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.303/2, NARASARAJA PET,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R2 TO R4,
SRI. MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB
WA No. 1665 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:27.09.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18865/2016 AND PLEASE
TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF) This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the unsuccessful petitioner, challenging the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18865/2016. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18865/2016 seeking for the following reliefs:
"(a) TO ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order Quash that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Respondents preliminary notification vide No.HCPM/BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated 27.06.1978 which was published in Karnataka Gazette Notification dated 05.05.1977. A copy of the preliminary notification is here with produced at Annexure-J. Which was followed by way of issue of Final notification vide No.HUD 567 MNX 1984 Dated 09.01.1985 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 01.03.1985 as per Annexure-K have respectively have Scheme lapsed in respect of property in question, consequently Annexure J & K have liable to be quashed in so far as the property in question i.e., bearing site No.1, H.L.Khatha No.720, property No.40/5B in Sy.No.40/5B situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
Measuring East to West 93+75/2 Feet and North to South 62 Feet totally measuring 5208 Sq feet is concerned.
(b) TO ISSUE a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate direction or order to quash the allotment Letter vide No.BDA:UK4/HBR/1- 4/1315/A/2015-16 dated 18.11.2015 issued -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR by the Respondent No.5 as per Annexure-R and also Lease Cum Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2015 executed by Respondent No.4 in favour of Respondent No.5 as per Annexure-T.
(c) TO GRANT any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit, under the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice."
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land originally bearing No.40/5B measuring 40 guntas of Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk belongs to Elizebeth Philip. She has executed General Power of Attorney (GPA for short) in favour of Philip Nainan. The GPA holder has executed a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1980 as per Annexure-A, in respect of the land in favour of Pallaniammal, W/o N.Chellamuthu, Raja S/o N.Chellamuthu (minor represented by his father and natural guardian), Sri.N.Chellamuthu, Sri.Marimuthu, S/o A.Nallaswamy, Smt.Malaimmal, W/o Marimutu. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that in a registered partition deed dated 22.11.2000, among the members of Chellamuthu, Marimuthu and their sisters, property bearing Site No.1, House list Khatha No.720, Property No.40/5B in Sy.No.40/5B situated at Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which is item No.1 in 'A' Schedule property fallen to the share of Chellamuthu. After the death of Chellamuthu, the petitioner purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 13.11.2002 executed by the legal heirs of Chellamuthu i.e., Palaniammal, Loganathan, Mrs. Poogodi, C.Vijaya, C.Ranya. After the sale deed, the petitioner has paid Betterment charges to the concerned authorities and also paid tax to the CMC Bytarayanapura for the year 2003- 2004. He has also paid tax to the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for all the years right from 2007-08 to till 2014-15. The CMC Byatarayanapura has also issued Assessment Register for the year 2003-2004, 2005-2006 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR showing the name of the petitioner in the said register in the owner's column.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has also issued Khatha Certificate in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that though preliminary notification was of the year 1977 followed by final notification in the year 1980, however, neither the compensation has been paid nor deposited as contemplated under the law or the physical possession of the property in question belonging to the petitioner was taken by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short). In that view of the matter, since no acquisition proceedings has been taken place prior to passing of New Land Acquisition Act, 2013, they are entitled for the benefits under the New Act. He further submits that in view of effect of New Act of 2013, the preliminary as well as final notifications has been lapsed -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR and the right, title and interest of the petitioner are revived.
8. Despite these aspects of the matter, the officials of respondent No.2 came near the property and tried to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and attempted to demolish the compound wall which was resisted and petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.26118/2005 on the file of 4 th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore against respondent No.2 for permanent injunction. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C was also filed seeking for temporary injunction. The trial Court was pleased to issue interim order of status quo against respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 appeared and filed its written statement. After filing the suit, petitioner noticed that the BDA has formed sites on the land and allotted to respondent No.5 under the Registered Lease cum Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner was before the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18865/2016 for the reliefs, which we have already extracted above.
9. The BDA appeared through its panel counsel and submitted that the possession notification issued under Section 16(2) under the Land Acquisition Act. In the proceedings, the owners of the land in Sy.No.40/5 participated and filed their objections which have been over ruled and land has been acquired, in these circumstances the subsequent sale deed executed on 05.12.2022, does not convey any title on the property, since as on the date of sale, the vendors of the petitioner do not have valid title over the property concerned.
10. It is further submitted that the Sy.No.40/5 was subdivided into Sy.No.40/5A and Sy.No.40/5B, notices were issued to the notified khatedars of the lands concerned and they have participated in the acquisition proceedings and the vendors of the petitioner have cheated the petitioner and sold a portion of the property in
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR favour of the petitioner after entire acquisition proceedings has been concluded and sought to dismiss the petition.
11. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner argued much on the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.26118/2015, wherein the trial Court restrained the BDA from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge observed that the trial Court in original suit is not competent to give a finding as to the validity of the acquisition of the land for the purpose of the BDA under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and further observed that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be construed as there has been no acquisition by the BDA in respect of the land concerned. It has to be limited to the petitioner being in possession of the land, albeit unauthorizedly and the BDA is entitled to take recourse to the law to have him evicted.
12. The learned Single Judge has further observed that on the submission of learned counsel for the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner that RFA.No.2067/2019 has been filed and the same is pending consideration before this Court. During the course of the argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the learned Single Judge that he may be given liberty to make necessary application under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in the event of the Court upholding the acquisition made by the BDA. The learned Single Judge at paragraph No.7 has stated that no such liberty is required since the right granted under Section 38D is a statutory right conferred on a landowner whose land is sought to be acquired by the BDA and it is always open for such persons to make an application to the BDA and it is for the BDA to consider the same in accordance with law and take a suitable decision. Further, at paragraph No.8, the learned Single Judge has opined that since land has been acquired for the purposes of the BDA in accordance with law and that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser who has purchased the land after completion of the entire
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR acquisition proceedings, the writ petition filed is not entertainable and accordingly, dismissed the petition. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge, is called in question in this intra Court appeal.
13. Heard, Sri.Rama Moorthy B.V, learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1(a) and 1(b), Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.M.V.Charati, learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri.Mohammad Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
14. Sri.Rama Moorthy B.V, on several points argued the appeal;
15. Firstly the land in Sy.No.40/5B has not been acquired by BDA. Neither in the preliminary notification nor in the final notification, there is any mention regarding land in Sy.No.40/5B. All that was shown in the preliminary notification as well as final notification is Sy.No.40/5 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas and even the boundaries
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR differ from one another. Secondly, he submits that, Sy.No.40/5 has been subdivided into Sy.No.40/5A and Sy.No.40/5B, much earlier to the acquisition of the land by the BDA, as such Sy.No.40/5B ought to have been reflected in the Notification. Having not done so, it is clear that there is no acquisition of land by BDA in Sy.No.40/5B. Thirdly, he submits that in view of the judgment of the trial Court, petitioner is in possession of the property and as such the property has not been acquired by the BDA. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition and grant the relief sought therein.
16. Refuting his submission, Sri.M.V.Charati with all vehemence submits that as per Annexure-R1, land has been acquired and the erstwhile owners/claimants Smt.Papamma, Smt.Lakshmi, Smt.Saroja and Smt.Mani have filed their objections to the acquisition proceedings, it has been considered and after over ruling the objections
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR lands were acquired. Annexure-R1 clearly reflects the name of erstwhile owners and this lucidly shows that erstwhile owners/claimants have participated in the proceedings. He further pointed out at Annexure-R2 at Page No.601 and 608 and submits that in the proceedings, the entire extent of land in Sy.No.40/5 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas has been shown along with sub-division viz., Sy.No.40/5A and Sy.No.40/5B measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and 1 acre 20 guntas, totally 2 acres 39 guntas. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that there is no mention of the land and no award has been passed and the possession has not been taken in respect of Sy.No.40/5B does not hold any water and the appeal requires to be dismissed.
17. Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the entire writ appeal paper and the order of learned Single Judge and we are satisfied that the division of lands has already been shown in Annexure-R2, in that view of the matter the submission of the learned counsel
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR for the petitioner-appellant that learned Single Judge has not considered his case cannot be countenanced. Even the perusal of the preliminary notification and final notification, the boundaries stated are exactly the same and there is no change in boundaries in respect of the entire land, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire material placed on record passed a well reasoned order taking all the contentions of the petitioner and answered the same at paragraph Nos.6 to 8 which reads as under:
"6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.26118/2015, wherein the trial Court has restrained the BDA from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. The trial Court in an original suit is not competent to give a finding as to the validity of the acquisition of the land for the purposes of the BDA under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. The ruling of the trial Court cannot be construed as there has been no
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR acquisition by the BDA in respect of the land concerned. It has to be limited to the petitioner being in possession of the land, albeit unauthorizedly and the BDA is entitled to take recourse to the law to have him evicted. It is further submitted that RFA No.2067/2019 is pending in this regard. Again, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to the Court that he may be given a liberty to make necessary application under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in the event of the Court upholding the acquisition made by the BDA.
7. Section 38D is a statutory right conferred on a landowner whose land is sought to be acquired by the BDA. It is always open for such persons to make an application to the BDA and it is for the BDA to consider the same in accordance with law and take a suitable decision and it does not require an order of the Court.
8. As the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition has been acquired for the purposes of the BDA in accordance with law and that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser who has purchased the land after completion of the entire acquisition proceedings, I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition."
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15334-DB WA No. 1665 of 2024 HC-KAR
18. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity or otherwise in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
19. The appeal sans merit and accordingly, dismissed.
Pending I.A/s, if any, shall stand disposed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8