Allowed

Smt Sumithramma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025WP/17376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought to quash an eviction notice from BDA for an educational institution. Court held that once BDA sold the land to private parties via registered deeds, it ceased to be public premises under the Act of 1974, divesting BDA of jurisdiction to issue eviction notices.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice/order dated 12.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 is quashed. Petitioners allowed.

Smt Sumithramma Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.17376 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUMITHRAMMA W/O. T. HALASIDDAPPA, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.166/4, ULLAL BASTHI, 4^TH CROSS, SRI SAI VIDYA CHETANA PUBLIC SCHOOL, VISVESWARAYA LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶10

SRI SAI VIDYA CHETANA PUBLIC SCHOOL, VISVESWARAYA LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 010. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI HARISH .H.

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.2, WEST SUB-DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, BDA COMPLEX, JNANA BHARATI BADAVANE, BANGALORE-MYSORE ROAD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

METRO PILLAR NO.594 FRONT, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 BEARING NO.BDA/AEE/WEST/UV-2/T-85/2025-26 ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking

¶27

to quash the notice/order dated 12.06.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 at Annexure D, whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate the alleged encroached area within seven days.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are as follows :

¶30

The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of 11 guntas of land in Survey No. 166/4 (old No. 166/2) of Ullal Village, Yeshwantpura-Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Petitioner No. 1 acquired the said property by way of a gift and is in possession of the same, where she runs an educational institution under the name and style of Sri. Sai Vidya Chethna Public School (petitioner No. 2). It is stated that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had earlier allotted site Nos. 428 and site No. 475 situated in Vishweshwaraiah Layout to M. Devraju and K. Sriram respectively under the registered sale deeds executed in the years 2003 and 2004. The property originally formed part of the lands belonging to A Nagaraja, son of Late Arsapa, whose lands in Survey Nos. 166/2 and 166/3 were subjected to acquisition under the BDA Act. The said Nagaraja challenged the acquisition proceedings in WP No. 8878 of 2003, and this Court quashed the acquisition in respect of 11 guntas in Survey No. 166/2.

¶34

Subsequently, the BDA, in its meeting held on 27.05.2005, resolved to release the said extent from the acquisition and recommended to the Government for denotification under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Act, 1894. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued a gazette notification denotifying 11 guntas of land is Sy. No.166/2. Since then, petitioners have been in possession.

¶38

The BDA has now issued the impugned notice dated 12.06.2025, alleging that the petitioners have encroached upon 460 square feet in site No. 428 and 362 square feet in site No. 475, and directing them to vacate the said portion.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once the BDA has executed absolute sale deeds in favour of the private purchasers, the land ceases to be a “public premises”, within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, (‘Act, 1974’ for short) and the BDA consequently loses jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings under the said Act. The notice issued by respondent No. 2 is, therefore, without authority of law and liable to be quashed.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the notice was issued as an administrative measure in view of the encroachment found on the sites allotted by the BDA.

¶43

On careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material on record, it is not in dispute that the BDA had executed registered sale deed in favour of M. Devraju and K. Sriram in respect of site numbers 428 and 475, thereby transferring ownership to private parties. Once such transfer is complete the properties no longer belong to the BDA or the State, and therefore do not fall within the ambit of “public premises”, under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1974 which reads thus :

¶44

“2. (e) “Public premises” means any premises belonging to or allotted to State Government or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of …………….”

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Accordingly, the BDA has no jurisdiction to

¶48

invoke the provisions of the said Act, 1974 or issue eviction notices to the petitioners. If any encroachment is alleged by the private purchasers, their remedy lies before

¶49

the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶50

10.Hence, the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 2 lacks jurisdiction, is contrary to law and cannot be sustained.

¶51

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following :

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice/order dated 12.06.2025 at Annexure-D issued by respondent No. 2 is quashed. (iii) It is made clear that this order will not preclude the concerned parties from approaching the competent Civil Court for adjudication of any civil dispute relating to

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:44840 WP No. 17376 of 2025

¶55

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

alleged encroachment, if so, advised in

¶58

accordance with law.

¶59

(iv) All the pending interlocutary applications stands disposed of.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶62

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Sumithramma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sumithramma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt B S Ramadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shankar Kheni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sindunadig Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Mr Nonayya G K Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr.P.Jayaram Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka