Allowed¶71

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri Rajanna

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2025WA/1996/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (DB), 06.02.2025, WA No. 1996 of 2015 (LA-BDA), BDA v. Rajanna & others — subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to challenge land acquisition or lapsing of acquisition; Shiv Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 229; DDA v. Manpreet Singh AIR 2023 SC 454; BDA Act 1894 S.17; Karnataka High Court Act S.4; appeal allowed, writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and WP.Nos.45300-304/2012 set aside and the writ petitions dismissed; pending applications, if any, dismissed. ¶71

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri Rajanna — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1996 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER SANKEY ROAD BANGALROE-560 020.

¶12

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD

¶13

BANGALORE-560 020.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO - ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI RAJANNA

¶19

S/O LATE SRI HAVALKONDAPPA AGED ABOT 40 YEARS

¶20

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI AJANNAPPA AGED 23 YEARS

¶21

SRI DEVRAJ S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O RAGAVAHAPALLY VILLAGE GOTIGERE POST

¶23

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶24

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN: 560 083.

¶25

SRI. B.R. JADAVE S/O LATE SRI SUBOJIRAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶26

SRI. L.S. PANDURAO JADAVE S/O LATE SRI SUBOJIRAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶27

SMT. SUDA JADAVE W/O LATE SRI SUBOJIRAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO. 276 CANARA BANK COLONY NAGARBHAVI ROAD BANGALORE-560072.

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S – AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.7; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2019, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶32

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 44654/2012 AND 45300-304/2012 DATED 20/02/2014.

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUEMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶38

Heard learned counsel Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao for the appellant and learned AGA Sri Hareesh A.S. for respondent No.7. Notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 served unrepresented.

¶39

This appeal is filed by BDA challenging the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and WP.Nos.45300304/2012 wherein writ petitions were allowed on the ground that neighbouring land also acquired which was subject-matter of the writ petition in WP.Nos.3523035234/2013 (LA-BDA) was allowed by this court on 13.02.2014.

¶40

Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-BDA submits that Petitioners No.4 to 6 are

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶42

subsequent purchasers and this issue is not at all considered in writ petitions. Further Petitioners No.1 to 3 are said to be owners of the land to extent of 4 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.2 of Raghuvanahalli Village out of which 26 guntas of land were sold in favour of petitioners No.4 to

¶43

Therefore, soon after acquisition of the land by BDA, petitioners No.4 to 6 purchased the land in question. In this regard learned counsel relied upon following decisions:

¶44

Shiv Kumar and another Vs. Union of India (2019)

¶45

10 SCC 229 (Para 19 & 20).

¶46

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Manpreet Singh and others, Civil Appeal No.277/2023.

¶47

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godrej Philips (P)

¶48

Ltd., & others, Civil Appeal No.3073/2022.

¶49

BDA Vs. Aslam & Others – WA No.829/2013.

¶50

Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Motilal

¶51

Agarawal and others (2011)5 SCC 394 (Paras 15 to 27).

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶53

Learned AGA Sri Hareesh.A.S. submits that respondents are subsequent purchasers having no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or lapsing of acquisition proceedings. Hence, he supports the decision of the BDA.

¶54

We have perused the material available on record. The original writ petitioners were subsequent purchasers who have acquired right, title or interest in the land in the year 2004. The original writ petitioners were not the recorded owner at the time when the award in respect of land is question notification was issued. From the material available on record, it appears that before the learned Single Judge the original writ petitioners claimed right, title or interest on basis of the sale deed of year 2004. In the present case, notification under section 17 of the BDA Act, 1894 was issued on 17.11.1988, final notification was issued on 22.07.1991. Therefore, short question which is posed for consideration of this court is whether the original

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶57

writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers had no

¶58

locus to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition.

¶59

The aforesaid issue is not Res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Manpreet Singh and Ors reported in AIR 2023 SC 454 at paragragh No.6 held as under:

¶60

‘ At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the original writ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, who has acquired the right, title or interest in the land in the year 2018. The original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to the land in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “ACT, 1894”) was issued. From the material on record, it appears that before the High Court, the original writ petitioner claimed the right, title or interest on the basis of the Assignment Deed of 2015. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was declared on 05.06.1987. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the consideration of this Court is :

¶61

Whether the original writ Petitioner being a subsequent purchaser had locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?

¶62

6.1. The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. (supra), which has been subsequently followed by another Bench of this Court in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra). The decision of this Court in the case

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶64

of Shiv Kumar and Anr. (supra) is a Three Judge Bench decision by which a contrary view taken by the Two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751 has not been accepted and is found to be not a good law. That thereafter after following the Three Judge Bench decision in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. (supra) in the cases of Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra), this Court has subsequently observed and held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings/lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013.

¶65

6.2. In that view of the matter, the High Court has committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the Respondent No. 1 herein - original writ Petitioner and has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed Under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in a writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein - original writ Petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser. Under the circumstances and on that ground alone, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be quashed and set aside.’

¶66

In view of the facts and circumstances of the

¶67

present case, petitioners are subsequent purchasers. Therefore, the subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of acquisition under the act. In view of the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by BDA succeeds. Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The appeal filed by BDA is allowed.

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5524-DB WA No. 1996 of 2015

¶71

ii) The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and WP.Nos.45300-304/2012 is hereby set aside. Thus, WP.No.44654/2012 (LA-BDA) and WP.Nos.45300304/2012 filed before learned Single Judge stands dismissed .

¶72

Pending applications if any, also stands dismissed.

¶73

SD/(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

¶74

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶75

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. D. P. Somaiah Vs Kumar Naik

M Monohar Vs Tushar Girinath

Karnataka Examination Authority Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thrilochanamurthy C S Vs Sri C S Kashipathi

Dr Subindh G B Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. G Purushothama Vs the State of Karnataka