Bengaluru High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to quash a BDA endorsement denying regularization in acquired land, ruling that prior challenges were res judicata and acquisition was valid.
Petition rejected; no relief granted; benefit under Section 38D kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 28632 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 28632 OF 2019 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
MR. SYED FAYAZ S/O. LATE SYED RAHIM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. SY. NO. 10, BHOOPSANDRA VILLAGE, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 094.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.T A KARUMBAIAH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N SRIDHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
WP No. 28632 of 2019
SRI. V KRISHNA MURTHY, AND SMT. SNEHALATHA H, ADVOCATE FOR R3-ABSENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.3.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 18.3.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO ISSUE AN ENDORSEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT LAND SY NO.10 MEASURING 0.21 GUNTAS OF BHOOPASANDRA VILLAGE IS NOT ACQUIRED FOR RAJAMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the BDA endorsement dated 3.5.2019, a copy
whereof avails at Annexure-G, which reads as under:
“¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ¨sÀÆ¥À¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.10 gÀ°è£À 0-21 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ gÁeïªÀĺÀ¯ï «¯Á¸ï 2£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ §qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©üPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAwªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ. CAw ªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:ºÉZïAiÀÄÄr/310/JAJ£ïJPïì/1982, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.12.1982 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄäUÉ LwÃ¥ÀÄð C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.10.1996 gÀAzÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.”
argues that in a small portion of the acquired property, his client has put up structures decades ago and therefore, he
should be permitted to retain the same by regularization
WP No. 28632 of 2019
or otherwise, consistent with the guarantee of
constitutional right to residence u/a 19(1)(e) and right to property u/a 300A. He also argues that, the possession of this portion of the property having not been taken away by the Respondent – BDA, the acquisition to this extent should have held to have been waived.
WP No. 28632 of 2019
broadly in agreement with the submission on behalf of the Respondents. The Preliminary Notification u/s 17(1) issued on 19.1.1978 and this was followed by the Final Notification u/s 19(1) issued on 28.12.1982 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, the award was passed on 18.9.1986 and it was approved by the Government, as well; possession was taken on 6.10.1986 and its factum has been Gazetted vide notification dated 30.7.1987 issued under Section 16(2) of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That being the position, interference of the Court is not called for.
WP No. 28632 of 2019
Amendment to the BDA Act, 1976 he has to first acquiesce
in the acquisition as a pre-condition.
In the above circumstances, the Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be & accordingly is rejected, costs having been reluctantly made easy.
It is made clear that this judgment shall not come in the way of compensation being claimed by the Petitioners’ side, in accordance with law.
It is open to the Petitioner to claim the benefit under Section 38D of the Amended Act in accordance with law. In that connection all contentions are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
CBC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 to quash the BDA endorsement rejecting the petitioner's representation regarding acquired land?
Whether the previous dismissal of the petition in W.P. No. 37838/2004 constitutes res judicata barring the current claim?
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr. Syed Fayaz
The State of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary
Bangalore Development Authority
Central Excise House Building Cooperative Society Ltd.
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
