Karnataka High Court
Sri Mariyappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 4 September, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34922
WP No. 28132 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 28132 OF 2024 (ULC)
BETWEEN:
SRI MARIYAPPA,
S/O LATE BYRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/A SOMSHETTIHALLI,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE - 560 079.
...PET ITIONER
(BY SRI T.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.S. ASHWATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
GEETHAKUMARI COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
PARLATTAYA S URBAN LAND CEILING ACT,
Location: High BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
Court of Karnataka D. C.OFFICE, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34922
WP No. 28132 of 2024
HC-KAR
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
5. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER-1,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 25.03.1988 PASSED IN CASE NO. ULC (A) (7) 146/1986-
87 U/S 10(1) OF THE URBAN LAND CEILING ACT PASSED BY
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY URBAN LAND CEILING BANGALORE TO ACQUIRE
THE ALLEGED EXCESS VACANT LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 3237-
47 SQUARE METERS IN SY NO. 37 (1) OF SOMASHETTIHALLI
VILAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI. BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
AS PER ANNX-A, DIRECT THE R-5 TO DELETE THE NAME OF
THE GOVT MENTIONED IN THE COLUMN NO. 9 AND 132(2) OF
THE RTC I.E ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34922
WP No. 28132 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This writ is filed for following reliefs:
a) Quashing the order dated: 25-03-1988, passed in case No.ULC(A)(7) 146/1986-87 under section 10(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore to acquire the alleged excess vacant land to an extent of 3237-47 square meters in Sy.No.37 (1) of Somashettihalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as per ANNEXURE-A.
b) Direct the respondent No.3 to delete the case No. No.ULC(A)(7) 146/1986-87 entered in the name of Government in the column No.9 & 12(2) of the RTC in Sy.No.37/1 of Somashettihalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as shown in ANNEXURE-K
(c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deem fit to the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
d) To quash the endorsement dated 14-2-24, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer-1 BDA in favour of the petitioner in respect of Land in Sy. No.37/1, measuring 1 Acre 8 guntas of Somasettihalli (V) Yeshwanthpur (H) Bangalore North (T) as per Annexure-N
e) Direct the Respondent No.4 to issue certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of Land in Sy.No.37/1, measuring 1 Acre of Somashettihalli (V) Yeshwanthpura (H), Bangalore North Taluk to get developed area from the BDA.
2. Sri T Narayana Swamy, learned counsel appearing for MS Ashwatha Reddy, learned advocate for petitioner submitted, land bearing Sy.no.37/1 belonged to petitioner's -4- NC: 2025:KHC:34922 WP No. 28132 of 2024 HC-KAR ancestors and under deed of partition dated 14.06.1972, extent of 32 guntas and 01 Acre 8 guntas, totally 2 Acres of land in Sy.no.37/1 was allotted to share of petitioner.
3. It was submitted, in terms of partition, name of petitioner was mutated in record of rights and he was paying revenue thereon. Such being case, and without issuing any notice to petitioner, respondent no.3 ordered for deletion of name of petitioner from revenue records in year 2006-07. It was submitted, petitioner had obtained conversion of land use to non-agricultural residential purposes under order dated 03.08.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-G. It was submitted, out of 02 Acres, petitioner had sold an extent of 01 Acre in favour of Mohammed Mukthiyar and Sridhara (Indraprastha Developers) under registered sale deed dated 04.09.2014 as per Annexure-J. It was submitted on 19.08.2022 respondents no.4 and 5 issued preliminary notification for acquition including petitioner's land for formation of Dr.Shivaramkaranth layout. Petitioner filed objections against proposal. However, final notification came to be issued on 18.10.2022. In -5- NC: 2025:KHC:34922 WP No. 28132 of 2024 HC-KAR meanwhile, on noticing that petitioner's name was deleted and name of Government was entered in revenue records, petitioner enquired and came to know that said entries were allegedly in pursuance of proceedings initiated under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, (ULC Act).
4. It was submitted, petitioner was not issued with any notice of said proceedings and without declaration of said lands as surplus and without taking possession, action on part of respondent no.3 to have mutated in revenue records was not justified. It was further submitted, ULC Act came to be repealed in year 1999 by issuance of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Consequently, proceedings even if initiated stood abated.
5. It was submitted, after issuance of final notification by respondent - BDA and after holding formal enquiry, petitioner was issued with entitlement certificate no.00032 dated 06.01.2024 entitling him for compensation. However, without any justification same was withdrawn as per Annexure- N dated 14.02.0223. Therefore, same was also assailed in this writ petition.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:34922 WP No. 28132 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. It was submitted, order passed by respondent no.1 under Section 10(1) of ULC Act as per Annexure-A was contrary to law and illegal, as it was without issuing notice to petitioner. Since proceedings under ULC Act had not concluded, they stood abated by virtue of repealing Act. Under such circumstances, deletion of name of petitioner and entry of name of Government in Column no.12(2) in respect of Sy.no.37/1 of Somashettihalli village as per Annexure-K was unsustainable. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition.
7. Smt.Waheeda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri K Krishna, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5 opposed petition. Since challenge of petitioner against proceedings initiated under ULC Act pivots on whether petitioner was issued with notice and whether proceedings stood concluded prior to issuance of repealed Act, learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to secure records. Records were secured.
8. To a Court query, whether petitioner was issued with notice and proceedings were concluded, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted, notice under 10(3) and (5) -7- NC: 2025:KHC:34922 WP No. 28132 of 2024 HC-KAR was issued to one Puttamuniyappa son of Byranna. Thereafter Special Deputy Commissioner on 05.03.1998 had directed jurisdictional Tahsildar to take possession and to enter name of government in revenue records. To a further query, whether any Mahazar drawn for taking possession was available, learned Additional Government Advocate answered in negative.
9. In view of above, and without anymore, since there are no records to indicate possession was taken either under Section 10(5) or 10(6) of ULC Act, proceedings cannot be said to have concluded. Name of government appears to have been entered in pursuance of direction issued by Special Deputy Commissioner. With issuance of repealing Act, proceedings even if initiated insofar as petitioner's lands are concerned would abate, regardless of whether notice was served or otherwise. In view of above, petitioner would succeed insofar as order at Annexures-A and K.
10. Insofar as challenge against Annexure-N, it is seen that revocation of entitlement certificate is on no other ground than that name of petitioner was got entered illegally in revenue records and entries were stayed in RA no.81/2023 with -8- NC: 2025:KHC:34922 WP No. 28132 of 2024 HC-KAR a finding of this Court that proceedings under ULC Act abated insofar as petitioner's property and holding entry of name of government as per Annexure-K as illegal, entry of petitioner's name in revenue records would be justified. Since there is no other reason for revocation of entitlement certificate, Annexure-N would not sustain.
Consequently, petitioner would be entitled for issuance of entitlement certificate by respondents no.4 and 5 to extent of 1 Acre in Sy.no.37/1 of Somashettihalli village, Yeshvanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, as same would remain with petitioner even after sale of 1 Acre in favour of Indra Prastha Developers.
In above terms, writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45