Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Zaheer vs Bangalroe Development Authority on 22 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 09.01.2026
Pronounced on : 22.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10028 OF 2024 (LA - BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IMAM SAB,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI MOHAMMED JAFFER,
S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O NO.1/4,
NMH ROAD-HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
2
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. SRI THIMMAIAH
S/O UTHANALAPPA,
R/O NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4. SMT. PILLAMMA
W/O GATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
5. SRI PAPPAIAH
S/O GANGAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
6. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O GATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
7. SRI PILLA NARASAPPA
S/O GATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
8. SRI PATTALAPPA
S/O GATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
ALL 4 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF
NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
9. SMT. RAMAKKA
AGED MAJOR,
3
W/O KEMPAIAH,
R/O NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
10 . SRI K.JAYARAMAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
S/O KEMPAIAH,
R/O NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
11 . SRI BYRAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O APPAIAH,
R/O NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
12 . SRI MUNIVEERAPPA
S/O ERAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
13 . SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O SAKAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
14 . SRI S.KEMPAIAH
S/O SAKAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
15 . SRI DODDAIAH
S/O SAKAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
4
RESIDENTS OF ANANTHPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 064.
16 . SRI DASAPPA
S/O SOMBAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O NAGENAHALLI,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
17 . SRI MUNIDASAPPA
S/O SAKAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
18 . SRI BYANNA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O SAKAPPA.
RESIDING AT KITHIGANOOR VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
19 . SRI B.CHANDRAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
20 . SRI B.NARAYANAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
NOS.19 AND 20 ARE RESIDENTS OF
NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5
21 . SMT.MUNIYAMMA
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDENT OF
NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
22 . SRI N.B.NANJAPPA
S/O BYANNA,
SINCE DEAD.
23 . SRI N.P.RAJASHEKARAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O PILLAPPA.
NOS.22 AND 23 ARE RESIDENTS OF
NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
24 . SMT.AMMAYAMMA
W/O PUTTAIAH,
AGED MAJOR.
25 . SMT.CHIKKAMMA
W/O MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED MAJOR.
26 . SRI APPE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O VEERCHIKKAPPA,
RESIDING AT
AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 064.
6
27 . SRI N.H.ANJANAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
R/O NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
28 . SRI T.N.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O NANJUNDAPPA,
R/O THIMMASANDRA,
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
29 . SMT. VENKTAMMA
W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
30 . SRI NAGARAJ
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED MAJOR
BOTH NO.29 AND 30 ARE RESIDENTS OF
AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANAKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
31 . SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE NARASAPPA
32 . SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE NARASAPPA,
R/O NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
7
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
33 . SMT.YASHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O K.NARAYANAPPA,
R/O NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
34 . SRI N.K.RAMAIAH
MAJOR,
S/O KEMPANNA,
35 . SRI N.R.RAVI
MAJOR,
S/O N.K.RAMAIAH
36 . SMT.N.R.SHASHIKALA
MAJOR,
S/O N.K.RAMAIAH
RESIDENTS OF NAGENAHALLI
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
37 . SMT.SUBBALAKSHMAMMA
W/O J.JAYARAMAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs.
(BY ORDER DATED 24.03.2025)
37(a) SMT.SUMITHRA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
D/O LATE SUBBALAKSHMAMMA
8
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O NO.100, NAGENAHALLI
YELAHANKA HOBLI
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 064.
38 . SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
R/O NO.669/5, BUNDAPPA ROAD,
YESHWANTHPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
39 . SRI K.NARAYANAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O KEMPAIAH,
R/O NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
40. SMT.GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE AMARESH N.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
41. SMT.AMBUJA A.,
D/O LATE AMARESH N.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
42. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR A.,
S/O LATE AMARESH N.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
43. SRI SHIVAKUMAR N.,
S/O LATE N.B.NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
9
44. SMT.LATHA H.,
W/O LATE SRINIVASMURTHY N.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
45. SMT.PUSHPA S.,
D/O LATE SIRNIVASAMURTHY N.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
46. SMT.NANDAN S.,
W/O LATE SIRNIVASMURTHY N.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
47. SMT.GEETHA M.,
W/O LATE SURENDRA N.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
48. KUMARI AMRATHA S.,
D/O LATE SURENDRA N.,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
49. MASTER GNANESH GOWDA
S/O LATE SURENDRA N.,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
SINCE THE APPLICANT NO.9 AND 10 I.E.,
THE RESPONDENT NO.48 AND 49
KUMARI AMRATHA S., AND MASTER GNANESH GOWDA
ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT.GEETHA M.,
THE APPLICANT NO.8 HEREIN I.E.,
THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.47.
50. SMT.PADMA N.,
W/O LATE VASU
D/O LATE N.B.NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
10
51. SRI MANJUNATH N.,
S/O LATE N.B.NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.40 TO 51
R/AT NO.90, NAGENAHALLI
YELAHANKA HOBLI
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 064.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 17.03.2025)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND 2;
SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N.SHARATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-10;
SRI PUTTARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-11;
SRI T.M.CHOWDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-12 TO 14;
SRI M.V.NAVEEN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-23, R-40 TO R-51;
SRI B.THYAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-27;
R-28 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-32;
SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI V.M.LAKSHMIPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-33;
SRI T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-37(a))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR
THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN NOT PASSING OF
THE AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER GRANTING
COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ITEM NOS.1 TO 28 OF
THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES; b) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PASS AN AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER AND DISBURSE THE COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONER FOR ACQUIRING ITEM NOS.1 TO 28 OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES OR IN ALTERNATE DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 GIVE 40% OF THE DEVELOPED LAND IN
LIEU OF THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR ACQUIRING ITEM
11
NOS.1 TO 28 OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES OR IN THE
ALTERNATE REFER THE MATTER TO THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT
/ AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONER
FOR ACQUIRING ITEM NOS.1 TO 28 OF SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; c) ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND
RESPONDENT NOT TO DISBURSE THE COMPENSATION FOR
ACQUIRING ITEM NOS.1 TO 28 OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT-3 TO 39 RECEIVED
THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayers:
"a) CALL for the records which ultimately resulted in not
passing of the award in favour of the petitioner granting
compensation for the acquisition of item Nos.1 to 28 of the
Schedule Properties;
b) ISSUE an order, direction or writ in the nature of
MANDAMUS directing the respondent No.2 to pass an award in
favour of the Petitioner and disburse the compensation to the
petitioner for acquiring Item Nos.1 to 28 of the Schedule
Properties or in alternate direct the Respondents 1 and 2 give
40 percent of the developed land in lieu of the compensation
payable for acquiring Item Nos.1 to 28 of the Schedule
Properties or in the alternative refer the matter to the
12
competent Civil Court / Authority to adjudicate the claims of the
Petitioner for acquiring Item nos.1 to 28 of Schedule Properties
in accordance with law;
c) ISSUE an order, direction or writ in the nature of
MANDAMUS directing the 2nd Respondent not to disburse the
compensation for acquiring Item Nos.1 to 28 of the Schedule
Properties in view of the fact that the Respondent-3 to 39
received the entire sale consideration from the Petitioner; and
d) ISSUE such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including
awarding cost to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Sri L.M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned
senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.10 and 33,
Sri Puttaraju K.R, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11,
Sri T.M.Chowda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents
12 to 14; Sri M.V. Naveen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 23, 40 to 51, Sri B. Thyagaraja, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.27, Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.32 and Sri T. H. Narayana,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.37(A).
13
3. Facts, in brief, are as follows: -
3.1. The schedule property becomes the subject matter of
acquisition by issuance of a preliminary notification on 30-05-1988.
A notification is issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) for the benefit of Trinity House Building
Cooperative Society. After about 8 months, the Government issues
a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act in furtherance of
the preliminary notification so issued, for the benefit of the said
Society. The land owners challenged the said acquisition in Writ
Petition Nos. 8188-8201 of 1989. After issuance of the final
notification, items 1 to 27 of the schedule property become the
subject matter of unregistered agreements of sale by the land
owners in favour of the petitioner, as also the General Power of
Attorneys thereto. On 11-07-1996 the writ petitions filed
challenging the final notification of land acquisition comes to be
allowed. The Trinity House Building Cooperative Society then
challenges the said order passed in the writ petition in Writ Appeal
No.7543-7557 of 1996. The Division Bench in terms of its order
dated 06-05-2004 upholds the order of the learned single Judge
14
quashing the acquisition proceedings, the result of which, the land
goes to the land owners.
3.2. Trinity House Building Cooperative Society and others
challenge the order of the Division Bench before the Apex Court in
S.L.P.No.13656-13684 of 2004. On 30-12-2008 when the S.L.P
was pending consideration; another notification comes to be issued
including the lands which were subject of agreement of sale for
formation of Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth Layout. On 27-10-2010 the
petitioner files an impleading application in S.L.P.Nos. 13656-13684
of 2004. When things stood thus, the learned single Judge quashes
the preliminary notification dated 30-12-2008 issued for formation
of Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth Layout. On 15-09-2016 the Apex Court
answers the challenge made by Trinity House Building Cooperative
Society by dismissing the Special Leave Petition in Civil Appeal
Nos.9091-9119 of 2016 & connected cases. Therefore, the order of
the learned single Judge quashing the preliminary notification dated
11-07-1996 and the order of the Division Bench dated 06-05-2004
both come to be affirmed by the Apex Court.
15
3.3. Contemporaneously, where the learned single judge had
quashed the acquisition notification dated 26-11-2014 qua Dr. K.
Shivaram Karanth Layout, the same was challenged in the writ
appeal which also comes to be dismissed. The Bangalore
Development Authority then challenges the said order before the
Apex Court. The Apex Court sets aside both the orders of the
learned single Judge and the Division Bench and directs completion
of acquisition within the time frame. The petitioner then claiming to
be gaining knowledge of disbursement of compensation for lands
that were acquired for the propose of Dr. K.Shivaram Karanth
Layout, files an application seeking that he should be heard while
disbursing the compensation, as he is a person interested. On
11-12-2020 a paper publication is issued calling for objections from
all persons interested. On 23-12-2020, the petitioner files his
objections and requests an award to be passed in his favour. On
22-03-2024, the Land Acquisition Officer communicates a letter of
intent allotting 40% of sites in favour of land owners thereby
rejecting the claim of the petitioner/agreement holder. It is,
therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.
16
4. The learned senior counsel Sri L.M. Chidanandayya
appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the
petitioner is a person interested as obtaining under the Land
Acquisition Act. The interest of the petitioner was in terms of an
agreement of sale entered into between the land owners and the
petitioner in the year 1995 when 100% of sale consideration was
paid and possession of the schedule property was delivered to the
agreement holder. He would submit that compensation must be
paid to the agreement holder who had entered into the agreements,
before this Court could quash the notification of land acquisition for
the purpose of Trinity House Building Cooperative Society. Again
the lands are acquired for the purpose of Dr. K.Shivaram Karanth
Layout. He would thus contend that the petitioner cannot be said to
be an alien to the possession of the schedule land qua the
acquisition and his claim must be answered by grant of
compensation of 40% of sites, holding him to be the land owner of
the schedule property.
5.1. Per contra, learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar
appearing for respondents 10 and 33 would take this Court through
17
the documents appended to the petition and the order of the Apex
Court. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the
Apex Court sealed the fate of this petitioner who had entered into
the agreements of sale. The contention is that the very act of
entering into sale of lands that had already become subject matter
of notifications both preliminary and final is itself illegal and void.
Merely because the Courts have quashed the proceedings, the lands
have gone back to the land owners. The petitioner cannot file a suit
for specific performance even, as the agreements are of the year
1995 and having kept quiet for 30 years, now wants to take the
compensation, which the 10th respondent or other respondents are
entitled to. She would seek dismissal of the petition.
5.2. All the other learned counsel appearing for different
respondents would toe the lines of the learned senior counsel
Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar appearing for respondents 10 and 33.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
18
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are all a matter of record. Three dates assume significance
before the petitioner comes into the picture. On 30-05-1988
preliminary notification is issued for the benefit of Trinity House
Building Co-operative Society; 18-03-1989 final notification
thereto; and 1989 Writ Petition Nos. 8188-8201 of 1989 challenging
the aforesaid notifications. During the subsistence of challenge,
emerges the petitioner by entering into the agreements of sale. The
agreements are appended to the petition. The agreements are
entered into in the year 1995. The agreements itself could not have
been entered into as the lands were already subject matter of
acquisition and the acquisition was yet to be answered which
happened on 11-07-1996 by the learned single Judge quashing the
acquisition, which is long after the agreements of sale entered into.
8. Trinity House Building Cooperative Society which suffered
the order challenges the same before the Division Bench. The
Division Bench in terms of its order dated 06-05-2004 affirms the
order of the learned single Judge by the following order:
19
".... .... ....
Re: Question No.5:
The appellant and respondents-land owners have agreed
to the withdrawal of the challenge to the acquisition proceedings
and the disposal of the appeals with certain directions. In so far
as merit of the challenge are concerned, the same have already
been examined by us above and rejected. The result would
therefore be that the acquisition proceedings can be taken to
their logical conclusion in accordance with law. This would imply
that the land owners would be entitled to claim compensation
for the lands acquired from them. The society may also while
discharging its liability towards payment of compensation be
entitled to claim adjustment of the amounts already paid by it to
the owners. We do not wish to enter into the controversy as to
what amounts the and owners have already received towards
the cost of their lands. That is a matter which the Land
Acquisition Officer shall be free to examine while making the
award. All that we need say is that if there are any amounts
acknowledged by the owners, the Land Acquisition Officer shall
in keeping with the agreed terms of the compromise petition
give adjustment of such amounts to the society. Needless to say
that the purchasers pendente lite shall also be entitled to seek
such redress in accordance with law as may be legally open to
them for the enforcement of their rights if any flowing from the
transfers made in their favour. The Society shall also be free to
allot one site each in terms of the compromise petition in favour
of each of the land owners, on usual terms of payment
prescribed for the same. Question No.5 is answered accordingly.
In the light of the our findings on the questions framed
earlier, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The
Order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the
writ petitions dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
Needless to say that the appellant Society shall be free to
take the acquisition proceedings to their logical conclusion in
which event the land owners shall be entitled to
claim compensation for the lands acquired from them in
accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in
20
the body of this order. The writ petitioner (land owners) shall
also be entitled to the allotment of one house site each on
payment of the price fixed for the same."
This is challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9091-
9119 of 2016. The Apex Court rejects the SLP in terms of its order
dated 15-09-2016. The order in the S.L.P. assumes significance for
a decision of the issue in the lis. Before the Apex Court, the
petitioner files an impleading application seeking to implead himself
into the proceedings on the score that he was an interested party.
The said impleading application comes to be answered in one
paragraph. The said paragraph reads as follows:
"45.The Impleadment Application Nos. 74-102 of
2010 filed in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
13656-13684 of 2004 are also liable to be rejected, as
the applicant therein claims to be the power-of-
Attorney(s) holder of some of the lands in question and
agreements of sale. Since he neither approached the High
Court, nor this Court by way of filing SLPs and neither the
agreements of sale nor the power of attorney(s) confer
any right upon him at this time, as the same is barred by
the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1952, provisions
of the Specific Relief Act as well as the Limitation Act, the
applicant has no legal right to come on record to
challenge the impugned judgment and therefore the
Impleadment Applications are rejected, as the same are
wholly unsustainable in law."
(Emphasis supplied)
21
The Apex Court holds that the impleading application in Application
Nos.74-104 of 2010 filed in those S.L.Ps. are also liable to be
rejected as the applicant therein claims to be the Power of Attorney
holder of some lands in question and agreement of sale. Since he
neither approached the High Court or the Apex Court by way of
filing S.L.P. and neither agreements of sale nor the Power of
Attorney confer any right upon him at this time, the same is barred
by the provisions of Land Reforms Act, Specific Relief Act and
Limitation Act. The applicant has no legal right to come on record to
challenge the impugned judgment and accordingly, rejecting the
impleading applications, on the ground that they are wholly
unsustainable in law.
9. The Apex Court sealed the fate of the petitioner both to
institute a suit for specific performance nor to challenge the
acquisition, while observing that an agreement of sale will not
confer any right over the property in favour of the petitioner. This
happens in 2016. The issue gets fast forwarded to 2020, as the
lands remain subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of
formation of Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth Layout. The petitioner still
22
hinges upon the very agreements of sale of the year 1995, which
the Apex Court holds that he has no right to claim compensation on
the score that he is an interested person and he is entitled to
receive compensation. Since everything gets over before the Apex
Court, the claim of the petitioner remains imaginary, as the
agreement of sale has remained an agreement of sale even today,
be it with possession or without possession, with full consideration
or partial consideration.
10. This Court, in identical circumstances, where the
agreement holder sought that he should be granted compensation,
answered the said challenge concerning Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth
Layout itself in MR. SYED ISMAIL v. BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1 as follows:-
"8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events, though narrated supra, would require to be reiterated in
certain details. The 3rd respondent pursuant to two sale deeds
dated 17-02-2005 and 22-09-2005 purchases the subject
properties. Pursuant to the said purchase, the name of the 3rd
respondent is mutated as the owner of the properties in revenue
records. The RTC is vindicative of the said fact.
9. When things stood thus, the BDA issues a preliminary
notification seeking to acquire certain lands including the land of
1
Writ Petition No.11630 of 2021 decided on 21-07-2025
23
the 3rd respondent for the purpose of Dr. Shivaram Karanth
Layout on 30-12-2008. The preliminary notification comes to be
challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 55863-55865 of 2014. The petitions come to be
allowed by the following order:
".... .... ....
4. The respondents have filed the objection
statement. In the objection statement it is contended
that since there were large extents of lands which had
been notified, the respondents require sometime to go
through the process and thereafter complete the
acquisition proceedings.
5. In that background, I do not propose to refer
to the contentions in detail for the reason that in respect
of the very same notification, this Court had made a
detailed consideration in W.P.No.9640 of 2014 and
connected petitions on 26-11-2014. During the said
consideration, this Court had taken note of contention
put forth on behalf of the respondents with regard to the
delay that has occasioned in the process as there were
certain deletions at the initial stages and when
subsequent deletions were made by the Land Acquisition
Officer, the Government has initiated enquiries in that
regard and therefore there was delay. This Court having
not accepted such contention and further relying on a
decision of this Court had arrived at the conclusion that
the delay as explained by the respondents is not
acceptable and therefore, the notification insofar as the
lands of the petitioners therein was held as lapsed.
Since in the instant case also the position is not different
from the said cases, a similar consideration requires to
be made.
6. Accordingly, the notification dated 30-12-2008
assailed in these petitions is held as having lapsed as
against the lands of the petitioners referred to in these
petitions which were included in the said notification.
In terms of the above, these petitions are
allowed to that extent.
24
In view of the disposal of the main petition,
I.A.No.2/ 2014 for dispensation also stands disposed of."
A Writ Appeal comes to be preferred by the BDA assailing
the order passed by the learned single Judge supra. The Writ
Appeal comes to be dismissed by the following order:
"2. As prayed for by Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned
Advocate appearing for the appellants, the appeal is
taken up for preliminary hearing.
3. The writ petitioner assailed a notification dated
December 30, 2008, proposing to acquire the land for
formation of a layout. The preliminary notification was
issue on December 30, 2008. Thereafter, neither the
final notification was issued nor possession was taken.
Consequently, the Hon'ble single Judge held that as
within the reasonable time, no further action was taken,
the proposal for acquisition got lapsed.
4. We do not find any merit in the appeal
5. The application for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal
is, also dismissed."
BDA challenges both the orders in several cases before the Apex
Court. The Apex Court in the case of BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[(2018) 9 SCC 122] (Civil Appeal No.7661-63 of 2018 and
connected cases decided on 03-08-2018), sets aside both the
orders of this Court and issues several directions holding:
".... .... ....
15. First, we take up the question as to whether
the High Court was legally justified on merits in
quashing the preliminary notification issued under
Section 17. The Constitution Bench of this Court
in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. [Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662]
has decided the question affirmatively. The BDA has
issued preliminary notification for acquisition of the
lands. Non-finalisation of the acquisition proceedings
resulted in the filing of the writ petitions before the High
Court of Karnataka by the owners in the year 1987.
25
Certain lands were de-notified and the permission which
was granted earlier was withdrawn. The denotification of
the land was also withdrawn. It was urged that the time-
frame which was prescribed under Sections 6 and 11-A
of the LA Act would form an integral part of the BDA Act.
This Court considered the scheme under the BDA Act
and has observed thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, 162, 164-66 &
192, paras 33, 35, 50, 55, 123, 124 & 125)
"33. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
which provide for time-frame for compliance and the
consequences of default thereof, are not applicable to
acquisition under the BDA Act. They are Sections 6 and
11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section 11-A,
if the award is not made within a period of two years
from the date of declaration under Section 6, the
acquisition proceedings will lapse. Similarly, where
declaration under Section 6 of this Act is not issued
within three years from the date of publication of
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
[such notification being issued after the
commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment
and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the
commencement of Central Act 68 of 1984] or within
one year where Section 4 notification was published
subsequent to the passing of Central Act 68 of 1984,
no such declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act can be issued in any of these cases.
***
35. Be that as it may, it is clear that the BDA Act is a self-contained code which provides for all the situations that may arise in planned development of an area including acquisition of land for that purpose. The scheme of the Act does not admit any necessity for reading the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as part and parcel of the BDA Act for attainment of its object. The primary object of the State Act is to carry out planned development and acquisition is a mere incident of such planned development. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, where the land is to be acquired for a specific public purpose and acquisition is the sum and substance of that Act, all matters in relation to the acquisition of land will be regulated by the provisions of that Act. The State Act has provided its own scheme and provisions for acquisition of land.
***
50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case in hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to acquisition like passing of an award, 26 payment of compensation and the legal remedies available under the Central Act would have to be applied to the acquisitions under the State Act but the bar contained in Sections 6 and 11-A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral part of the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific time-frames under its various provisions as well as consequences of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does not admit such incorporation.
***
55. The principle stated in Munithimmaiah case [Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 326] that the BDA Act is a self-contained code, was referred with approval by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy [Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1]. The Court, inter alia, specifically discussed and answered the questions whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act and if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year of the publication of the notification under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, whether such final declaration will be invalid and held as under: (Bondu Ramaswamy case [BonduRamaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] , SCC p. 170, paras 79-81) '79. This question arises from the contention raised by one of the appellants that the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the LA Act", for short) will apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act and consequently if the final declaration under Section 19(1) is not issued within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act, such final declaration will be invalid. The appellants' submissions are as under: the notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Act was issued and gazetted on 3-2-2003 and the declaration under Section 19(1) was issued and published on 23-2-2004. Section 36 of the Act provides that the acquisition of land under the BDA Act within or outside the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, shall be regulated by the provisions of the LA Act, so far as they are applicable. Section 6 of the LA Act requires that no declaration shall be made, in respect of any land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of such notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. As the provisions of the LA Act have been made applicable to acquisitions under the BDA Act, it is necessary that the declaration under Section 19(1) of 27 the BDA Act (which is equivalent to the final declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act) should also be made before the expiry of one year from the date of publication of notification under Sections 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act [which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the LA Act].
80. The BDA Act contains provisions relating to acquisition of properties, up to the stage of publication of final declaration. The BDA Act does not contain the subsequent provisions relating to completion of the acquisition, that is, issue of notices, enquiry and award, vesting of land, payment of compensation, principles relating to determination of compensation, etc. Section 36 of the BDA Act does not make the LA Act applicable in its entirety, but states that the acquisition under the BDA Act, shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the LA Act. Therefore, it follows that where there are already provisions in the BDA Act regulating certain aspects or stages of acquisition or the proceedings relating thereto, the corresponding provisions of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. Only those provisions of the LA Act, relating to the stages of acquisition, for which there is no provision in the BDA Act, are applied to the acquisitions under the BDA Act.
81. The BDA Act contains specific provisions relating to preliminary notification and final declaration. In fact the procedure up to final declaration under the BDA Act is different from the procedure under the LA Act relating to acquisition proceedings up to the stage of final notification. Therefore, having regard to the scheme for acquisition under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act and the limited application of the LA Act in terms of Section 36 of the BDA Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the LA Act will not apply to the acquisitions under the BDA Act. If Section 6 of the LA Act is not made applicable, the question of amendment to Section 6 of the LA Act providing a time-limit for issue of final declaration, will also not apply.' We may notice that, in the above case, the Court declined to examine whether the provisions of Section 11-A of the Central Act would apply to the acquisition under the BDA Act but categorically stated that Sections 4 and 6 of the Central Act were inapplicable to the acquisition under the BDA Act.
***
123. Accepting the argument of the appellant would certainly frustrate the very object of the State 28 law, particularly when both the enactments can peacefully operate together. To us, there appears to be no direct conflict between the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the BDA Act. The BDA Act does not admit reading of provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act into its scheme as it is bound to debilitate the very object of the State law. Parliament has not enacted any law with regard to development the competence of which, in fact, exclusively falls in the domain of the State Legislature with reference to Schedule VII List II Entries 5 and 18.
124. Both these laws cover different fields of legislation and do not relate to the same List, leave apart the question of relating to the same entry. Acquisition being merely an incident of planned development, the Court will have to ignore it even if there was some encroachment or overlapping. The BDA Act does not provide any provision in regard to compensation and manner of acquisition for which it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailed mechanism for the acquisition of property, i.e. they are not covering the same field and, thus, there is no apparent irreconcilable conflict. The BDA Act provides a specific period during which the development under a scheme has to be implemented and if it is not so done, the consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act. None of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act deals with implementation of schemes. We have already answered that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place. Therefore, the question of applying the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not arise. Section 27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the consequences of default, including the fate of acquisition, where vesting has not taken place under Section 27(3). Thus, there are no provisions under the two Acts which operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilable conflict.
125. Having said so, now we proceed to record our answer to the question referred to the larger Bench as follows:
For the reasons stated in this judgment, we hold that the BDA Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided 29 under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as they provide different time- frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings, cannot be read into the BDA Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act."
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has emphasised that the primary object of the BDA Act is to carry out planned development. The State Act has provided its own scheme. The time constraints of the land acquisition are not applicable to the BDA Act. Making applicable the time-frame of Section 11-A of the LA Act would debilitate the very object of the BDA Act. It is apparent that the decision of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is directly juxtaposed to the decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] in which precisely the question involved in the instant cases had been dealt with. By indirect method by making applicable the time period of two years of Section 11-A of the LA Act mandate of BDA Act has been violated. However, it is shocking that various decisions have been taken into consideration particularly by the Single Judge, however, whereas the decision that has set the controversy at rest, has not even been noticed even by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. If this is the fate of the law of the land laid down by this Court that too the decision by the Constitution Bench, so much can be said but to exercise restraint is the best use of the power.
Least said is better, the way in which the justice has been dealt with and the planned development of Bangalore City has been left at the mercy of unscrupulous persons of the Government and the BDA.
17. It is apparent from the fact that the Single Judge has relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna [H.N. Shivanna v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8956: (2013) 4 KCCR 2793] in which it was observed by the Division Bench that scheme was to be completed in 2 years otherwise it would lapse. It was precisely the question of time period which was dwelt upon and what was ultimately decided by this Court 30 in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] has been blatantly violated by the Single Judge and that too in flagrant violation of the provisions and intendment of the Act.
18. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that there were a large number of irregularities in the course of an inquiry under Section 18(1) of the BDA Act. The Government had nothing to do with respect to the release of the land at this stage, as the stage of final notification had not reached but still the landowners in connivance with the influential persons, political or otherwise, managed the directions in respect of 251 acres of the land and the Special Land Acquisition Collector also considered exclusion of 498 acres of the land against which the question was raised in the Assembly and eyebrows were raised in public domain. Two inquiries were ordered on 24-11-2012 and 19-1-2013 by the State Government and based upon that inquiry, it was ordered and a public notice was issued on 3-5-2014 that the BDA will consider the entire matter afresh.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the writ petitions came to be filed, it would not be termed to be the bona fide litigation, but was initiated having failed in attempt to get the land illegally excluded at the hands of the Special Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government and after the inquiries held in the matter and the notice was issued to start the proceedings afresh. At this stage, the writ petitions were filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all open to the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued under Section 17, as the landowners, the State Government and BDA were responsible to create a mess in the way of planned development of Bangalore City.
20. The scheme which was framed was so much benevolent scheme that 40% of the 55% of the land reserved for the residential purpose was to be given to the landowners at their choice and they were also given the choice to obtain the compensation, if they so desired, under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, it was such a scheme that there was no scope for any exclusion of the land in the ultimate final notification.
3121. It is apparent from the circumstances that the matter cannot be left at the mercy of unscrupulous authority of the BDA, the State Government or in the political hands. Considering the proper development and planned development of Bangalore City, let the Government issue a final notification with respect to the land which has been notified in the initial notification and there is no question of leaving out of the land in the instant case as option has been given to landowners to claim the land or to claim the compensation under the relevant LA Act which may be applicable in the case.
22. It was contended on behalf of the landowners that certain developments have taken place after the orders were passed regarding exclusion of the land and when Section 27 provides a limitation of five years after final notification, in case development was not undertaken within five years, even the final scheme would lapse. Thus, the principle enunciated in Section 27 should be followed by this Court with respect to the lapse of preliminary notification as well. We find that there is a vast difference in the provisions and action to be taken pursuant to the preliminary notification and the final notification under Section 19. In the instant case, the facts indicated that it was in the interest of the public, landowners, BDA and the State Government. The scheme had prior approval of the State Government however at the cost of public interest yet another scheme was sought to be frustrated by powerful unforeseen hands and the issuance of final notification had been delayed. Three inquiries were ordered, two by the State Government and one by the BDA as the release of the land was being proposed in an illegal manner. Hue and cry has been raised about their illegalities in the Assembly as well as in the public. Thus, for the delay, owners cannot escape the liability, they cannot take the advantage of their own wrong having acted in collusion with the authorities. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case the time consumed would not adversely affect the ultimate development of Bangalore City.
23. The authorities are supposed to carry out the statutory mandate and cannot be permitted to act against the public interest and planned development of Bangalore City which was envisaged as a statutory mandate under the BDA Act. The State Government, as 32 well as the authorities under the BDA Act, are supposed to cater to the need of the planned development which is a mandate enjoined upon them and also binding on them. They have to necessarily carry it forward and no dereliction of duty can be an escape route so as to avoid fulfilment of the obligation enjoined upon them. The courts are not powerless to frown upon such an action and proper development cannot be deterred by continuing inaction. As the proper development of such metropolitan is of immense importance, the public purpose for which the primary notification was issued was in order to provide civic amenities like laying down roads, etc. which cannot be left at the whim or mercy of the authorities concerned. They were bound to act in furtherance thereof. There was a clear embargo placed while issuing the notification not to create any charge, mortgage, assign, issue or revise any improvement and after inquiry, it was clear that the notice had been issued in May 2014, thus, no development could have been made legally. Notification dated 3-5-2014 was issued that re-inquiry was necessary in the matter. The development made, if any, would be at the peril of the owners and it has to give way to larger welfare schemes and the individual interest and cannot come in the way of the larger public interest. The acquisition was for the proper and planned development that was an absolute necessity for the city of Bangalore.
24. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in condoning the delay. Though, it is apparent that the authorities had come with certain delay, in certain matters and the writ appeals were also filed belatedly with the delay in the High Court, however, considering the provisions of the scheme and the method and manner, wrong has been committed, it has compelled us not only to condone the delay but also to act in the matter so as to preserve the sanctity of the legal process and decision of this Court in Offshore Holdings [Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BDA, (2011) 3 SCC 139: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662].
25. We, therefore, direct the State Government as well as the BDA to proceed further to issue final notification without any further delay in the light of the observations made in the order. The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench are hereby quashed and set aside. The scheme and 33 notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act are hereby upheld with the aforesaid directions.
26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer proposed exclusion of 251 acres of land from acquisition on being asked by the Government after the preliminary notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer, has considered another 498 acres of land to be excluded from being acquired. In connection to this, several questions were raised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as a result of which two inquiries were ordered by the State Government i.e. on 24-11- 2012 and 19-1-2013. However, result of the inquiry is not forthcoming. Further, it appears that the exclusion of the lands from acquisition was proposed in connivance with influential persons; political or otherwise. We are of the view that the BDA and the State Government have to proceed with the acquisition of these lands. We are also of the view that it is just and proper to hold an inquiry for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government for trying to exclude these lands from acquisition.
27. Therefore, we appoint Hon'ble Mr Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court as the inquiry officer for fixing the responsibility on the officials of the BDA and the State Government who were responsible for the aforesaid. The Commissioner, BDA is hereby directed to consult the inquiry officer and pay his remuneration. Further, we direct BDA to provide appropriate secretarial assistance and logistical support to the inquiry officer for holding the inquiry. In addition, we authorise the inquiry officer to appoint requisite staff on temporary basis to assist him in the inquiry and to fix their salaries. Further, the BDA is directed to pay their salaries. The State Government and the BDA are directed to produce the files/documents in relation to the aforesaid lands before the inquiry officer within a period of four weeks from today. We request the inquiry officer to submit his report to this Court as expeditiously as possible.
28. The State Government and the BDA are further directed to proceed with the acquisition of the aforementioned lands without excluding land from acquisition and submit a report to this Court the steps 34 taken by them in this regard within a period of three months from today."
The Apex Court, on the reasons so rendered, directs the State Government and the BDA to proceed with the acquisition for formation of layout without excluding any land from acquisition and submit a report to the Apex Court the steps taken towards the said acquisition. It directed completion within 3 months.
10. The entire fulcrum of the present lis revolves round on the aforesaid two dates - one the date of issuance of the preliminary notification on 30-12-2008 and the date of issuance of final notification on 30-10- 2018. Instances that had happened during the 10 years period is what is required to be noticed and considered.
11. As earlier delineated, the preliminary notification comes to be issued on 30-12-2008. The subject land did form part of the lands notified for acquisition, is an admitted fact. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner fully cognizant of acquisition process, nevertheless, enters into two agreements of sale with the 3rd and 4th respondents, the owner of the respective properties. The agreements of sale encompassed two parcels of land, for a total consideration of ₹1,18,80,000/- and towards which an advance of ₹40,00,000/- was paid. The agreement of sale reads as follows:
"AGREEMENT TO SELL This agreement to sell is made and executed on this the FIFTH day of JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE (05.01.2012) at BANGALORE, By:
Sri C.Shivaraju, Aged 41 years, S/o late Sri ChikkaMininagappa, residing at No.31, 2nd Main Road, Marenahalli, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560050.
(Hereinafter referred to as the SELLER which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or is specifically excluded by, mean & include his legal heirs, successors in interest, nominees, executors and assigns) ON THE ONE PART TO AND IN FAVOUR OF:35
1. Sri Syed Ismail, Aged 29 years, S/o Sri Syed Ibrahim.
2. Sri Syed Sajid Ahmed, Aged 37 years, S/o Sri Syed Abdul Sattar.
Both carrying on business at Door No.437/B, Flat-E, opp: HBR Lay-out BDA Complex, 5th Cross, 2nd Block, HBR Lay-out, Bangalore - 560 043.
(Hereinafter referred to collectively as the PURCHASERS which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or is specifically excluded by, mean & include their legal Heirs, successors in interest, nominees, executors and assigns) ON THE OTHER PART, WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS:
The Seller is the sole and absolute owner of agricultural dry lands measuring in all 1(one) acre and 6 (six) guntas of agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No.42/3, situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Hereinafter referred to as the SCHEDULE A PROPERTY and described in greater detail in the schedule appended hereunder). The seller had purchased the schedule property from its previous owner under a Deed of sale dated 17-02-2005, registered as Document No.YAN-1-23751/2004-05 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore.
AND, the seller is also the sole and absolute owner of agricultural dry lands measuring in all 20 (twenty) guntas of agricultural dry lands bearing Sy.No.42/2, situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Hereinafter referred to as the SCHEDULE B PROPERTY and described in greater detail in the schedule appended hereunder). The seller had purchased the schedule property from its previous owner under a Deed of sale dated 22-09-2005 registered as Document No.YAN-1-06564/05-06, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore.
AND WHEREAS, the seller now with an intent to acquire other agricultural lands has offered the schedule A & B property for sale and the purchasers after negotiations has accepted the offer of the seller and has agreed to purchase the schedule A & B property on the following terms and conditions:
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
1. The sale consideration fixed for the schedule A & B property is at the rate of ₹1.80,000/- (Rs. One lakh eighty thousands only) per gunta. The schedule A & B property measure in all 1 (one) acre and 36 twenty-six (twenty-six) guntas i.e., 66 (sixty-six) guntas in all. Thus, the total agreed sale consideration is ₹1,18,80,000/-(₹one crore eighteen lakhs eighty thousand only).
2. Upon execution of this agreement, the purchaser has paid the seller an advance amount of ₹40,00,000/- (₹Forty lakhs only) in the following manner:
(i) ₹10,00,000/- (Rs.ten lakhs only) by way of cheque No.024978 dated 15-01-2012, ₹7,50,000/- (₹ seven lakhs fifty thousand only) by cheque No.024941 dated 31-01-2012, ₹7,50,000/- (₹seven lakhs fifty thousand only) by cheque No.024942 dated 31-01-2012, all cheques drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Bangalore.
(ii) ₹15,00,000/- (₹ Fifteen lakhs only) in cash.
RECEIPT of which sums, the seller acknowledges.
3. The Purchaser covenants to pay the seller the balance of the agreed sale consideration of ₹ 78,80,000/- (₹ Seventy-eight lakhs eighty thousand only) on or before 180 (one hundred and eighty) days from the date of this agreement. And upon receipt of the aforesaid sum, the seller covenant to come forward in person and without protest, demur or demand, cause execution of an absolute Deed of Sale of the Schedule A & B property, in favour of the purchaser and/or in favour of the nominee/s of the purchaser.
4. The seller assures the purchaser that the schedule A & B property is free of all charges, liens or mortgages. The Schedule A & B property is not the subject matter of any agreement to sell. The schedule A and B property is self-acquired and the seller alone has the absolute right, to sell the schedule A and B property to any person of his choice.
5. The seller covenants to pay all charges, demands, taxes, levies, penalties and fines concerning the Schedule A & B property, until registration of the A & B schedule property in favour of the purchaser.
6. Both parties herein shall be entitled to seek specific performance of this agreement.
SCHEDULE A PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry lands bearing Sy. No.42/3, measuring 1 (one) acre and 6(six) guntas and situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The property is bounded as follows:
East by: Lands belonging to Sri Siddappa West by: Lands bearing Sy.No.42/2 North by: Lands belonging to Sri Venkatesh South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi.37
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry lands bearing Sy. No.42/2, measuring 20 (twenty) guntas and situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The property is bounded as follows:
East by: Lands belonging to seller herein West by: Lands belonging to Sri Hanumanthappa North by: Lands belonging to Sriyuths Venkatesh & Narayanaswamy South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have set their hands to this agreement, on this the day, month and year hereinabove written, in the presence of the following witnesses:"
In terms of the clauses in the agreement, the petitioner who is the agreement holder had to pay balance sale consideration of ₹78,80,000/- within six months. Since the agreement holder failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period, the 3rd respondent is said to have caused legal notices seeking cancellation of the agreement dated 05-01-2012 and forfeiture of the advance amount. Two legal notices were caused identically worded. A few paragraphs of the legal notice caused on the petitioner become necessary to be noticed. It reads as follows:
".... .... ....
3. But, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by my client both of you have not come forward to finalize the sale transaction within the stipulated time and even thereafter and thus both of you have totally failed and neglected to perform your part of contract under the sale agreement and rendered yourself liable for cancellation of the sale agreement and forfeiting the advance amount. My client could not purchase the properties he desired and thus he suffered heavy financial loss and because of your non-performance of contract within time and the prices of the properties are increasing day by day in the vicinity. Hence, this notice.
Both of you are jointly and severally called upon to take notice that the sale agreement dated 5- 01-2012 in respect of the schedule properties entered into between both of you and my client is stands 38 cancelled due to your non-performance of the contract within the stipulated time as also thereafter in spite of several opportunities provided to you both and thus the advance amount has been forfeited. Both of you shall cease to have no manner of right, interest or claim whatsoever as against my client as also the schedule properties from hereafter. My client will be at full liberty to transact with the schedule properties in any manner he likes.
Charges of this notice ₹5,000/- payable to my client.
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry land bearing Sy. No.42/3, measuring 1 acre and 6 guntas situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, bounded on:
East by: Lands belonging to Sri Siddappa West by: Lands bearing Sy.No.42/2 North by: Lands belonging to Sri Venkatesh South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi.
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the agricultural dry land bearing Sy. No.42/2, measuring 20 guntas, situated in Meda Agrahara, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, bounded on:
East by: Lands belonging to my client
West by: Lands belonging to Sri
Hanumanthappa
North by: Lands belonging to Sri Venkatesh
& Narayanaswamy
South by: Guni Agrahara Gadi."
(Emphasis added)
The legal notice mentions both 3rd and 4th respondents, this is said to have received by the petitioner as evidenced by the acknowledgment of registered post, which is appended to the objections. The agreement is said to have been cancelled later and the petitioner takes back the advance amount so paid. The 39 cancellation agreement insofar as the 4th respondent is concerned, is drawn on 05-07-2012. It reads as follows:
"CANCELLATION AGREEMENT THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT is made and executed on this the Fifth day of July, Two Thousand Twelve (5-07-2012) at Bengaluru by and between:
Sri Syed Sajid Ahmed, S/o Mr.Syed Abdul Sattar, Aged about 37 years, No.437/B, Flat 'E' Opp: BDA Complex, 5th Cross, 2nd Block, HBR Lay-out, Bengaluru-560 043.
Hereinafter referred to as the PURCHASER on the one part AND:
Sri Hanumanthappa S/o late Muni Nagappa, aged about 57 years, No.17/8, 1st Main Marenahalli, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 040.
Hereinafter referred to as the VENDOR on the other Part WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, by virtue of an agreement dated 2-01-2012 and 5-01-2012 the Purchaser along with one Mr. Syed Ismail had entered into a contract of sale with the Vendor agreeing to purchase the land measuring 1 acre 7 guntas in Sy.No.42/4 and land measuring 31 guntas in Sy.No.42/2 of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which is more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule property in this cancellation agreement, whereupon the purchaser had agreed to purchase the schedule property for the total sale consideration and price of ₹1,43,75,000/- in furtherance of which the sum of ₹25,00,000/- had been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.
WHEREAS, due to certain unavoidable circumstances, differences crept between the purchaser 40 and Mr. Syed Ismail whereupon they could not arrange the balance sale consideration amount and agreed to cancel the sale agreement for the latches on their part and whereas, the Purchaser has put forth his proposal with the vendor regarding his intention of cancellation of the agreement for which the vendor had also agreed in furtherance of which this agreement of cancellation is executed on the following TREMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. The agreement dated 2-01-2012 and 5-01- 2012 entered into between the vendor and the purchaser in respect of the schedule property stand cancelled, revoked and rescinded with immediate effect.
2. The contract to purchase the schedule property jointly by the purchaser and Mr. Syed Ismail shall get terminated and rescinded automatically in view of their failure to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the vendor who was ready and willing to execute the sale deed against the receipt of the balance sale consideration amount from them.
3. The purchaser has received 50% of the consideration amount paid to the vendor under the contract of sale dated 5-1-2012 and the purchaser hereby acknowledges the receipt of ₹12,50,000/- from the vendor by cash on this day.
4. The purchaser shall not have any claim whatsoever against the vendor or against the schedule property henceforth under any circumstances.
5. It is specifically agreed between the parties that the balance sum of ₹12,50,000/- shall be refunded by the purchaser to Mr. Syed Ismail against handing over of the original agreement of sale dated 5-1-2012 and 5-01-2012.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the land measuring 1 acre 07 guntas in Sy.No.42/4 and land measuring 31 guntas in Sy.No.42/2 of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru.41
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both the parties have signed this cancellation agreement on the day month and year first above mentioned in the presence of the undersigned attesting witnesses.
WITNESSES: Sd/- PURCHASER
1. Sd/- Sd/- VENDOR
2. Sd/-"
The receipt evidencing taking back of the advance amount reads as follows:
"RECEIPT Received the sum of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) from C.Shivaraju, S/o late Chikka Muninagappa, No.31, 2nd main, Marenahalli, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40 on this the Fifth Day of July Two Thousand Twelve (5-07-2012) at Bangalore through cash of ₹3.5 lakhs and the remaining sum of ₹16.5 lakhs through cheques in lieu of the cancellation of the agreement of sale dated 5-01-2012 entered into between us along with Mr. Syed Ismail as the first purchaser in respect of lands measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Survey No.42/3 and 42/2 of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as refund of the full consideration amount paid by me to him under the same Witnesses: Sd/- Syed Sajid Ahmed, Executant
1.Sd/- S/o Syed Abdul Sattar,
2.Sd/- Aged 37 years, #408, 14th Cross, Fathima Lay-out, Gavindapura, Bangalore-45"
(Emphasis added) This is sometime after causing of the legal notice.
12. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.1552 of 2012 before the concerned Court initially seeking the relief of injunction, and subsequently amending the plaint prayer by seeking the relief of specific performance. Some clauses in the amended plaint read as follows:
42".... .... ....
9. That the cause of action for the suit arose on when the plaintiff and defendant have entered into agreement of sale dated 5-01-2012 and on 30-10-2012 when the defendant along with third parties had come near the suit schedule properties and was negotiating to alienate the suit schedule properties and when the plaintiff requested the defendant not to do so as he has already entered agreement with him and go on with transaction with plaintiff and when the defendant refused to do so and subsequently, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
10. That the Plaintiffs have not filed any other suit against the Defendants on the same cause of action nor has any such suit been turned down by any Court, and the said suit is filed within time.
11. That the fixed court fee as contemplated under the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act is paid hereon. Separate Valuation slip is annexed.
12. No legal proceedings/court litigation past/present is pending with regard to any part of the subject matter of this suit.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant:
(a)(i) That the defendant transfer the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff by duly executing and registering a sale deed in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2015 by receiving the balance sale consideration or in the alternative direct the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of ₹45,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per cent per annum calculated from 06-01-2015.
... ... ..."
Issues were framed in the said suit on 17-01-2014. The petitioner is said to have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in O.S.No.1552 of 2012 which comes to be dismissed on 28-06-2017. After all this, comes the final notification in terms 43 of the directions of the Apex Court on 30-10-2018. The petitioner wakes up and takes two steps - one submitting plethora of representations to the BDA seeking compensation and the other challenging the order dated 28-06-2017 passed by the civil Court rejecting the application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. On the strength of the agreement the petitioner is now wanting to take the compensation that the land owner is at all times entitled.
Whether this would be permissible in law is what is required to be noticed.
13. The agreement of sale that underpins the petitioner claim is, notably unregistered. The unregistered agreement is said to have been cancelled by another unregistered document. Therefore, cancellation, too, is cloaked in the same infirmity. Therefore, if the agreement gives the petitioner some right, its cancellation has taken away the said right. Both are unregistered documents. What is the purport of unregistered agreement of sale need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN v. VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1062], has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners have emphasised their claims on the basis of the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana. The said decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills. The issue addressed was avoidance of execution and registration of deed of conveyances as a mode of transfer of a free hold immovable property, especially in the teeth of Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act. The tendency to 44 adopt Power of Attorney sales along with execution of sale agreements and a bequeath by way of will, instead of execution and registration of proper deeds of conveyance on receipt of full consideration was deprecated. We extract paragraphs 15 to 17 of an earlier order dated 15.05.2009 in the said case, extracted as such in para 15 of the aforesaid decision:
"15. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non- registration.
16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future 'any right, title or interest' whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100 and upward to or in immovable property.
17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed."
16. The observation that registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed is not to confer an unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents. Even the respondents/writ petitioners accept that the presumption coming forth from a registered deed of conveyance is rebuttable. While reserving the right of persons who had obtained sale agreement/general power of attorney/will executed, to complete confirmation of title on them by getting registered deeds of conveyance, the conclusion of the cited decision, which acts as a binding precedent, is available in para 24, which we extract hereunder:--
45"24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales."
17. It is in this context that we must examine the document of 19.03.1982, an agreement which is said to have been validated in the year 2006. We immediately notice that the very contention of the writ petitioners is only that they have obtained proper conveyances by registered sale deeds from Bhavana society, whose claim is under the agreement of 1982, which has not till date been registered and hence cannot be recognized as a valid mode or instrument of transfer of immovable property, going by the above decision.
... ... ...
22. Further, an instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four- months' time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration or re- registration within four months from the date of such execution. In the instant case, all the executants, parties to the agreement, have signed on the day shown in the agreement. The proviso to Section 34 also enables the Registrar to condone 46 the delay, if the document is presented within a further period of four months, on payment of a fine. The validation of the sale agreement, which clearly is shown to be not one executed by the declarants, by reason of it materially differing from that produced as Annexure P-33, on the strength of which a suit for specific performance was filed by the vendor, the Bhavana Society, which is also the intended purchaser in the sale agreement of 1982, it smacks of fraud. The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent instrument had been registered. As we noticed at the outset, the learned Single Judge did not decide the title but only raised valid suspicion insofar as the title of the vendor in the deed of conveyance. Even according to the writ petitioners, their claim stems from a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance, especially since it is not a registered document.
23. The Division Bench has found possession on the appellants and the writ petitioners by virtue of two interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court. The first one is in W.P. No. 29547 of 2011, wherein the Lok Ayukta was directed not to pass any further orders but the State Government and the APIIC Ltd. were not restrained from taking any action in accordance with law. The interim order in W.P. No. 4466 of 2012 also does not establish possession on the writ petitioners. Undoubtedly, the 53 acres would be comprised in the 99.07 acres alleged to have been resumed to the possession of the original declarants through their GPA, but there is nothing on record indicating the possession, either of the respondents/writ petitioners or the appellants/respondents in the writ petition."
(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, nothing flows to the hands of the petitioner unless there is a determination by any Court of law, with regard to his rights qua the agreement of sale."
(Emphasis supplied) 47 This Court was following the judgment of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court holds that an agreement holder registered or unregistered would not get any right whatsoever, as the instrument of conveyance requires the agreement of sale to be taken to its logical conclusion, which has not happened therein and which did not happen in the case at hand as well. Therefore, the agreements of sale have remained as agreements. Thus, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation, plainly on the observation of the Apex Court on his impleading application, as quoted hereinabove.
11. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Interim order if any operating shall also stand dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ