Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri. S. Venkata Reddy

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025WA/1706/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA Act acquisition; Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 lapse for want of possession; 16 guntas Survey No.146/A Agara Village; L. Ramareddy 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3435 (W.A. No.1415/2018); Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 69 (Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663/2018); Section 24(2) inapplicable to State enactments; Single Judge order dated 15.03.2016 set aside; writ appeal allowed; remand for fresh decision; Karnataka High Court Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 in W.P. Nos.18071-18072/2014 set aside; matter remanded to the learned Single Judge to take a decision afresh. ¶¶55

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri. S. Venkata Reddy — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 in W.P. Nos.18071-18072/2014 set aside; matter remanded to the learned Single Judge to take a decision afresh.

¶¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge's order dated 15.03.2016 in W.P. Nos.18071-18072/2014 — which held that, possession of 16 guntas in Survey No.146/A of Agara Village not having been taken, the scheme and the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act — could stand, where the preliminary and final notifications issued under the BDA Act challenged in L. Ramareddy pertain to the same Survey No.146 of Agara Village.

¶¶47

Court's answer

The preliminary and final notifications issued under the BDA Act and subjected to challenge in L. Ramareddy (W.A. No.1415/2018) are also in respect of Survey No.146 of Agara Village — the same land as in W.P. Nos.18071-18072/2014.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 in W.P. Nos.18071-18072/2014, impugned in this writ appeal, cannot stand and is set aside.

¶¶48

Key takeaways

The writ appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to take a decision afresh.ratio¶¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LA-BDA) by the Bangalore Development Authority against the learned Single Judge's order dated 15.03.2016 in W.P. Nos.18071-18072/2014, which had allowed the respondent's petition holding that, possession of 16 guntas in Survey No.146/A of Agara Village not having been taken, the scheme and the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Division Bench (Jayant Banerji and K.V. Aravind, JJ.) found that the preliminary and final notifications issued under the BDA Act challenged in L. Ramareddy (W.A. No.1415/2018; 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3435) pertained to the same Survey No.146 of Agara Village, and recorded counsel's contention — per L. Ramareddy and the Supreme Court's disposal of Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663/2018 (Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 69) — that Section 24(2) does not apply to acquisitions initiated under State enactments such as the Bangalore Development Act, 1976. Holding the impugned order unable to stand, the Bench set it aside, allowed the writ appeal, and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50462-DB WA No. 1706 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT APPEAL No.1706 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI M. V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. S. VENKATA REDDY, S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT No.99, 7^TH CROSS, 24^TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR - 1, BANGALORE - 560102.

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPEMNT,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:50462-DB WA No. 1706 of 2016

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. AZRA DUNDAGE, AGA FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.18071-18072/2014 DATED 15/03/2016.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶32

The aforesaid appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.18071-18072/2014 whereby, while referring to the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

¶33

2013¹ it was held that possession had not been taken in

¶34

1 Act of 2013

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50462-DB WA No. 1706 of 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

respect of 16 guntas of land in Survey No.146/A of Agara Village therefore, not only the scheme would lapse but the acquisition as well. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred

¶39

to the judgment of this Court in the case of L. Ramareddy v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, represented by Secretary and Others² to contend that in respect of the same notifications pertaining to the same Survey No.146 of Agara Village, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would not apply to acquisitions initiated under the provisions of any other enactment particularly, State enactments such as the Bangalore Development Act, 1976³ . It is stated that this aspect was iterated by the Supreme Court while disposing of certain applications in Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663/2018 in Bangalore

¶40

2 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3435

¶41

3 BDA Act

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:50462-DB WA No. 1706 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Development Authority and Another v. State of

¶46

Karnataka and Others⁴ .

¶47

We have perused the record of the other Writ Appeal bearing No.1415/2018, which is the case of L. Ramareddy referred above as well as the original record produced by learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority⁵ and we find that the preliminary and final notifications issued under the BDA Act, which were subjected to challenge in L. Ramareddy, are also in respect of the aforesaid Survey No.146 of Agara Village, which was under challenge in W.P. Nos.1807118072/2014.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid, the order of the learned Single Judge of 15.03.2016, which is impugned in this writ appeal, in Writ Petition Nos.18071-18072/2014 cannot stand and is accordingly, set aside.

¶49