Sri Jaimuni Vs the Government of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.14185 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI JAIMUNI S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.96, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, HENNUR VILLAGE, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

¶13

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶14

THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BDA SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SMT. DEEPTI AYATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DE-NOTIFY THE LAND BEARING SY. NO.83/4, MEASURING 15 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HENNURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK OWNED BY THE PETITIONER FROM ACQUISITION PERTAINING TO FORMATION OF “ARKAVATHI LAYOUT” FROM THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 193 MNX 2004 DATED 23.02.2004 AT SERIAL NO.76 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 426 MNJ 2011 DATED 18.06.2014 AT SERIAL NO.1117 AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to de-notify the land bearing Sy.No.83/4, measuring 15 guntas situated at Hennuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru, owned by him from the acquisition made for the formation of “Arkavati Layout”, pursuant to the final notification dated 23.02.2004 at serial No.76 and final notification dated 18.06.2014 at serial No.1117 at Annexures-A and B.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶26

learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-BDA.

¶27

Brief facts:

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.83/4, measuring 15 guntas situated at Hennuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘petition property’ for short). The said property was included in the notification issued by the BDA for formation of the Arkavati Layout.

¶29

The petitioner contends that he was unaware of the acquisition proceedings, either the preliminary or the final notification. It is stated that in the notification, the owner’s name was erroneously mentioned as Jaimuni Narayanappa instead of ‘Jaimuni’ and therefore, he was not put on notice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner continues to be in physical possession of the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

petition property and the respondents have not taken possession till date.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2, referring to the statement of objections, submits that the petitioner's claim of ignorance is untenable. It is pointed out that as early as on 10.03.2003, the petitioner himself had submitted a representation before the BDA objecting to the acquisition and seeking exemption of his property. Subsequently, on 15.11.2016, he made another representation requesting allotment of site under “40x60” scheme. Further, it is submitted that the BDA, in response, issued a communication calling upon the petitioner to furnish necessary documents to consider his request, whereupon the petitioner executed an affidavit and indemnity bond acknowledging that there were no pending proceedings, and thereby accepted the acquisition of the land for Arkavati Layout. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the acquisition proceedings from the very beginning, and the present writ petition has

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

been filed with a mala fide intention to reopen a matter that has attained finality. It is further argued that the petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶38

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶39

contentions and perused the material on record.

¶40

It is an admitted fact that the final notification dated 23.02.2004 has been subject to extensive litigation before this Court in several writ petitions filed by the landowners. Learned single Judge had quashed the acquisition proceedings. However, the Division Bench in Writ Appeal upheld the acquisition and issued guidelines defining the circumstances in which landowners could redress or seek regularization. Pursuant to those directions, the BDA issued a redone final notification on 18.06.2014. Further, the said judgment of the Division Bench was carried in appeal before the Apex Court in SLP(c)No.4318/2006, which was dismissed, thereby

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

affirming the validity of the acquisition. The Apex Court directed formation of the Keshavanarayana Committee to redress the specific grievances, and the acquisition proceedings for Arkavati Layout have thus attained finality.

¶44

From the records, it is evident that the petitioner has participated in proceedings by filing a representation as early as in 2003 and again sought allotment of site in 2016. These facts clearly establish that the petitioner was well aware of the acquisition proceedings. Thus his present contention that he was unaware of the notification and that the entry of his name as “Jaimuni Narayanappa”, was a typographical error cannot be accepted. When the acquisition proceedings have been upheld both by this Court and by the Apex Court and have reached finality, any further challenge to the same is impermissible in law. Once the scheme has been implemented and sites are formed, individual

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:40147 WP No. 14185 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

landowners cannot seek de-notification of their petition lands.

¶49

The law is well settled that once the acquisition proceedings have culminated, the writ petition cannot be entertained to reopen or nullify the same. The petitioner’s prayer for de-notification, therefore lacks merit. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, filed with an ulterior motive and devoid of merits. Hence, this Court pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits .

¶52

ii. The acquisition of the petition property under the Arkavati Layout scheme having attained finality, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶55

AT

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Jaimuni v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jaimuni v. the Government of Karnataka

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

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Deputy General Manager

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B S Nagarathnamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri B N Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Basi Redd Jayrami Reddy Vs the Asst Executive Engineer