Smt Jayalakshmi N Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI .N W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NO.179, SOOLIKERE POST, KANNIKA LAYOUT, RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560060. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUDHINDRA S.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BDA AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.08.2025 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-S; DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BDA AUTHORITY TO COLLECT THE BETTERMENT CHARGES FORM THE PETITIONERS IN PURSUANCE OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 18.04.2017 PASSED BY THE BDA AUTHORITY AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.32322/2024 VIDE ANNEXUREU.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to respondent No.2-Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) to consider the representation given by the petitioner at Annexure-S and to collect the betterment charges in accordance with the resolution dated 18.04.2017 passed by the BDA.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶26

The petitioner claims to be the owner of revenue site bearing No.179 formed in land bearing

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Sy.No.160 of Ramsandra Village, Sulikere Grama

¶30

Panchayati, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2006. The BDA for the purpose of forming Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout notified the said land in Sy.No.160 under preliminary notification dated 21.05.2008 and final notification dated 18.02.2010.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority and Another Vs. Sri. R. Shankaran and Another¹ (R. Shankaran) . Placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment, it is submitted that similar directions have been issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶32

Smt. Yellamanchele Vidhulatha Devi and Others Vs. State

¶33

of Karnataka and Others² (Yellamanchele) , wherein the writ petition was allowed with a direction to consider the

¶34

1 W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected cases D.D.22.02.2024

¶35

² W.P.No.24754/2025 D.D.16.09.2025

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

representations of the petitioners therein, in accordance

¶39

with law.

¶40

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yellamanchele stated supra , while following the aforesaid Division Bench judgment has held at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as follows :

¶41

“4. The Division Bench in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters , disposed on 22-02-2024 in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER VS. SRI.R.SHANKARAN & ANOTHER has held as follows:

¶42

"ORDER

¶43

1) The above appeals filed by the BDA are allowed;

¶44

ii) The order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions is set aside. The orders passed in writ petitions which are decided placing reliance on the order dated 11.7.2014 passed in WP No.32186/2010 and other connected writ petitions are also set aside;

¶45

iii) The preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009,

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Bangalore, dated 21.5.2008 and the final notification bearing No. UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore, dated 18.2.2010 issued for acquisition of lands for the formation of the "Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout" are upheld subject to the following conditions:

¶49

a) With regard to the land owners (excluding the site owners):

¶50

i) All the land owners/writ petitioners who are seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition on the ground that their lands are (1) nursery lands; (2) situated within green belt; (3) totally built up; (4) that the buildings are constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions; (5) that similar adjoining lands have been either left out from acquisition or denotified, are permitted to make an application to the BDA seeking for dropping of their lands from acquisition by producing all such material that they deem fit/necessary in support of their applications within 3 months from today;

¶51

(ii) The BDA shall consider each of the said application/s keeping in mind the status of the lands as on the date of the preliminary notification and without taking into consideration any developments / improvements / constructions made subsequent to the preliminary notification;

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(iii) The BDA shall complete the exercise of considering the applications of the writ petitioners and deciding on the same within an outer limit of six months from today;

¶55

iv) The BDA, upon consideration of the applications shall intimate the writ petitioners about its decision;

¶56

v) If the BDA is of the opinion that the acquisition will have to be proceeded with, the BDA is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law;

¶57

b) Insofar as the site owners who have not made an application as contemplated in para (iii)(a) hereinabove:

¶58

i) They shall register themselves for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 within three months from today by paying the registration fee. However, payment of initial deposit by them is exempted. The necessary documents along with the said applications are also to be filed to enable the BDA to verify the same;

¶59

ii) The BDA shall treat the applicants as being entitled for priority allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30x40 feet in the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the prevailing allotment prices subject to the applicants satisfying the dual requirements of allotment under the Rules that they must be the

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

residents of Bengaluru (for 10 years) and should not be owning any residential property in Bengaluru;

¶63

iii) In case the applicants/writ petitioners do not fulfill the requirements for allotment under the Rules, 1984 they may be considered for allotment of 20x30 feet sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989;

¶64

c) Insofar as the owners of residential sites who form part of a layout and who have sought for dropping their lands from acquisition in accordance with para (iii)(a) hereinabove, the BDA shall consider the same having regard to the observations made at para 66 hereinabove. If the BDA rejects their applications, the site owners who have first filed applications pursuant to para (iii)(a) hereinabove, shall be entitled to a further period of one month after the decision as contemplated therein is intimated to opt to and apply in the manner as contemplated in para (iii) (b) hereinabove.

¶65

iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished.

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

v) In view of the allowing of the above appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶69

No costs."

¶70

5. In the light of the afore-quoted directions, I deem it appropriate to direct the BDA to consider the representation of the petitioners already submitted, as is directed by the Division Bench in the judgment quoted supra, within the time frame fixed by the Division Bench, which would run from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, till the consideration of the representation, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioners.”

¶71

In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Division Bench in R. Shankaran followed by the Coordinate Bench in Yellamanchele , this Court finds no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the direction issued in

¶72

R. Shankaran .

¶73

The respondent-BDA are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner at

¶74

Annexure-S, as per the directions issued in the case of

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:53888 WP No. 29757 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

R. Shankaran , within the time fixed in the case of

¶79

R. Shankaran .

¶80

In the meanwhile, the respondents-BDA shall

¶81

not take any precipitative steps or dispossess the petitioner from the schedule property, if not already dispossessed, till the representations are duly considered and orders are passed in accordance with law.

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶84

AT

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt Jayalakshmi N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayalakshmi N v. the State 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

Sri M N Veerendrapatil Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Aecs Layout Welfare Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar a H Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt N Anusuyamma Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Smt.Kusumalatha M.J. Vs Special Deputy Commissioner - 3