Sri. Narasimhaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri. Narasimhaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI NARASIMHAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

SMT. THULASAMMA W/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

SRI B.N.SRIRAMAIAH S/O.LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT.B.N.SHOBHA W/O. RAMESH AND D/O.LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

SMT. ANURADHA W/O. NIRANJAN AND D/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

SMT. RAMYA W/O. NANDA KUMAR AND D/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI GALINJANEYA.B.P S/O. LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA AND D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. SRI.SHANKARAPPA AND D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

SMT. RAMAKKA ALIAS RAMYA W/O. SRI RAJANI AND D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O. RAMANJANEYA AND D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

SRI B.R.SRIRAMAIAH S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

SMT. LATHA W/O. SRINIVAS AND D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: HALE BYROHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

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

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1; SRI.MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-5)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.4343/2024 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT ii) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2025 IN WP NO.4343/2024 CONSEQUENTLY, AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF)

The petitioners in W.P.No.4343/2024 are before us in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Writ Court.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

Under the impugned order, the Writ Court

disposed of the Writ Petition with certain observations.

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

Facts germane to file this appeal are as under:

The petitioners claimed to be the legal

representatives of erstwhile owners of land bearing Sy.No.45/1C measuring 04 Acres 19 Guntas, situated at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. They approached the Writ Court seeking following reliefs:

"Wherefore the Petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

(a) Issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the endorsement/order dated 26.07.2023, bearing No.BDA/ALAO/211/2023-24, issued/ made by the Respondent No.4, Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-M;

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

(b) Issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to Survey 15 guntas of land namely petition Schedule Property and demarcate the same from remaining acquired larger extent of land and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of Petition Schedule Property which is left out of acquisition as per the Award, Amended Award and Award Notice, vide Annexure-D, E and F; AND

(c) Grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

The claim of the petitioners before the Writ Court was that their land in Sy.No.45/1C was sought to be acquired by the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority¹ for the purpose of formation of 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout', in terms of the Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008, in which the name of Papaiah is shown as the owner of the land in Sy.No.45/1

1 hereinafter referred to as, 'the BDA'

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

and Sy.No.45/2. A representation was made by the petitioners to the Land Acquisition Officer² , requesting the authority to exclude 20 Guntas of land from the acquisition on the ground that there are houses built by them for their personal use and use of the family members. On the said representation, consent award came to be passed on 15.09.2014, wherein an extent of 15 Guntas of land belonging to Papaiah was excluded. Followed by the consent award, the LAO had issued amended award on 18.05.2016, wherein there is a specific reference to the Land in Sy.No.45/1C measuring 04 Acres 19 Guntas. It is the case of the petitioners that 15 Guntas of land has not been demarcated and excluded which has been left out of acquisition in terms of the award stated supra.

It is their further contention that excluded portion of 15 Guntas of land forms part of 04 Acres 09 Guntas forming part of Sy.No.45/1A1 and 45/1C. As the representation has not been considered, Writ Petition was

2 for short, 'the LAO'

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

filed before this Court in W.P.No.10434/2023 seeking a direction to consider the representation. An endorsement came to be issued during the pendency of the Writ Petition on 26.07.2023. In view of the endorsement, the petitioners withdrew the Writ Petition with liberty to challenge the said endorsement accordingly. In these circumstances, the petitioners were before the Writ Court in the present Writ Petition, challenging the endorsement dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure-M) and sought to quash the endorsement. Alternatively the petitioners submitted that in the endorsement impugned, the BDA has intimated that a proposal to acquire the excluded land is under

consideration and that as and when such acquisition notification is issued, the petitioners may be reserved liberty to file further representation to seek exclusion of their land.

7. Upon notice, the BDA appeared and specifically

contended that no portion of land in Sy.No.45/1C was notified. Further contended that 15 Guntas of land which

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

has been excluded on the premise of same consisted of residential houses fall within the area in Sy.No.45/1B. To buttress its argument, the BDA has referred to Sketch produced along with the memo dated 25.03.2024, contending that the houses stated to be constructed are not in Sy.No.45/1C, but in Sy.No.45/1B.

The Writ Court extracting the relevant portion of Annexure-D which records the reasons for exclusion of 15 Guntas of land and after consideration of Sketch and submission of the respondent BDA, called upon the petitioners to file an affidavit with respect to the existence

of houses if any as claimed by them in the Writ Petition, specifically with reference to the Sketch produced by the BDA.

Petitioner No.2 Galianjaneya.B.P filed his affidavit reiterating the averments stated in the Writ Petition and produced certain photographs showing the existence of certain houses. The Writ Court having found

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

that the affidavit do not indicate the existence of said 15 Guntas of land in Sy.No.45/1C specifically with reference to Sketch produced by the BDA, found that the affidavit is hardly of any assistance to the case of the petitioners as there is neither any reference to said Sketch nor there is any clarification as to where exactly 15 Guntas of land has been situated and concluded that the contention of the petitioners that 15 guntas of land excluded forms part of Sy.No.45/1C is without any basis and having found under the Sketch that the houses/structures is in Sy.No.45/1B and considering the fact that the BDA in the document at Annexure-D has excluded 15 Guntas of land in Sy.No.45/1

and 45/2 belonging to Papaiah S/o.Late Narasimhaiah, observed that the BDA may specifically identify, demarcate and delineate the said excluded portion of land and further taking note of the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that under the impugned endorsement, the BDA has informed the petitioners that even the extent of 15 Guntas of land which was excluded is under

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

consideration for acquisition, if and when such proceeding

are undertaken and if the petitioners are able to establish that their houses as claimed in the petition are existing in the said excluded portion of 15 Guntas of land, the BDA shall consider such representation in accordance with law. With these observations, the Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal.

Heard, Sri.D.R.Rajashekarappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

Sri.D.R.Rajashekarappa, more or less reiterated the very same arguments already argued before the Writ Court. He contends that 15 Guntas of land wherein structures were found is existing in Sy.No.45/1C and not in Sy.No.45/1B.

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:20848-DB WA No. 1558 of 2025

HC-KAR

We have noticed after perusing the Sketch

produced along with memo that, the structures are existing on Sy.No.45/1B and not in Sy.No.45/1C as observed and held by the Writ Court. No contra materials are produced to take a contrary view than that of the Writ Court. We therefore, seeing no merits in the case, dismiss the Writ Appeal saving the liberty observed at Paragraph No.12 of the impugned order.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21