Dismissed¶¶58

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri Shamanna

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026WA/1616/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ appeals (W.A. Nos. 1616-1619 of 2014, LA-BDA) by Bangalore Development Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer against Single Judge's order dated 19.02.2014 deleting lands from Arkavathi Layout acquisition; dismissed as infructuous on 17.07.2017 because BDA had accepted the order and executed deeds of cancellation on 06.03.2014 before filing the appeals; matter not considered on merits; pending interlocutory applications dismissed; no order as to costs; Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA (2010) 7 SCC 129 referred.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the writ appeals stand dismissed as infructuous, the pending interlocutory applications are dismissed, and there is no order as to costs. ¶¶58

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri Shamanna — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the writ appeals stand dismissed as infructuous, the pending interlocutory applications are dismissed, and there is no order as to costs.

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeals filed by the Bangalore Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer on July 15, 2014 could be considered on merits, given that the BDA had already accepted the learned Single Judge's order of February 19, 2014 and acted upon it by executing deeds of cancellation on March 6, 2014.

¶¶55

Court's answer

As the Bengaluru Development Authority had accepted the order of the learned Single Judge and executed a series of deeds of cancellation on March 6, 2014, it had no occasion to file these writ appeals on July 15, 2014.

¶¶55

Ratio / Principle

There is no scope to consider the matter on merits as the appellants have accepted the order of the learned Single Judge and acted upon it.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

The writ appeals stand dismissed as infructuous.ratio¶¶58
In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are dismissed.ratio¶¶61
There will be no order as to costs.ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (Division Bench: Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, author; Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar) — Writ Appeal Nos. 1616 to 1619 of 2014 (LA-BDA), decided July 17, 2017 (filed July 15, 2014). The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore South Taluk appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the Single Judge's order dated February 19, 2014 in W.P. Nos. 5343-5345 and 5575 of 2014, which deleted the petitioners' lands from the Arkavathi Layout acquisition and ordered their withdrawal as the petitioners were in possession. Before filing the appeals, the BDA had accepted that order and, on March 6, 2014, executed a series of deeds cancelling the alternative sites allotted in lieu of the acquired lands (registered March 7, 2014). Holding that the appellants, having accepted and acted upon the Single Judge's order, had 'no occasion' to file the appeals and that there was 'no scope to consider the matter on merits', the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals as infructuous; the pending interlocutory applications were dismissed and there was no order as to costs. Precedent referenced in the factual narrative: Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF JULY, 2017

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NOS.1616 TO 1619 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶11

KUMARA PARK WEST

¶12

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD

¶13

BANGALORE – 560 020

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶16

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶17

KUMARA PARK WEST

¶18

T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD

¶19

BANGALORE – 560 020 ... APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY MR. S.VIJAY SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI.SHAMANNA

¶23

S/O LATA JALADA SUBBAIAH

¶24

AGE: 87 YEARS

¶25

RESIDENT OF NO.76

¶26

3^RD MAIN ROAD

¶27

¶28

AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, CHOLANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032

¶29

SRI.SEERANNA S/O LATE JALADA SUBBAIAH AGE: 80 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.314 9^TH A CROSS, JAKKUR (POST)

¶30

BANGALORE-560 064

¶31

SRI APPANNA S/O LATE JALADA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.315 9^TH A CROSS, JAKKUR VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064

¶32

REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI S.V.S. SUDHIR BABU S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, L 87, 4^TH MAIN, 14^TH CROSS,

¶33

BANGALORE-560 034

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY … RESPONDENTS

¶35

(MR.ANANTH MANDAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 MR.VIVEK HOLLA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4 MR.C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN IA.1 OF 2017)

¶36

¶37

¶38

These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.Nos.5343-5345 and 5575 of 2014 dated 19.2.2014.

¶39

These appeals coming on for Orders this day, THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

These are appeals against the judgment and order dated February 19, 2014, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.5343 to 5345 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5575 of

¶42

All matters listed together shall be considered separately

¶43

in view of peculiar nature of these appeals.

¶44

The lands of the writ petitioners were acquired for formation of the Arkavathi layout. In lieu of the lands that were acquired from the writ petitioners, certain lands were given to the writ petitioners by the Bengaluru Development Authority.

¶45

¶46

The writ petitioners requested for dropping of their lands from the acquisition on the ground that their lands did not come under the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘BONDU RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS’ reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129. The Land Acquisition Officer submitted a report holding that those lands were necessary for formation of the said layout. The said report was accepted by the Bengaluru Development Authority.

¶47

The writ petitioners again approached the Bengaluru Development Authority to denotify their lands. Consequently, another report was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer suggesting deletion of those lands from the acquisition.

¶48

In spite of the second report, the authorities did not drop the acquisition proceedings in relation to the lands of the writ petitioners. Consequently, the writ petitioners moved the High Court in the constitutional writ jurisdiction.

¶49

¶50

The Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, holding that the lands of the writ petitioners are deleted from the acquisition proceedings and as the writ petitioners were in possession of the lands, therefore, the lands were ordered to be withdrawn from the acquisition.

¶51

The order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was accepted by the Bengaluru Development Authority. The Bengaluru Development Authority executed various deeds on March 6, 2014, cancelling the deeds, by which the lands were allotted to the writ petitioners in lieu of their acquired lands. Those documents were presented for registration and they were registered on March 7, 2014, and stored in the Compact Disc in the office of the Additional District Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District, on March 22, 2014. Therefore, the lands that were allotted in favour of the writ petitioners in lieu of their purported acquired lands, stood cancelled and the writ petitioners, as of now, do not have any interest in those lands.

¶52

¶53

The present writ appeals are filed, only, on July 15,

¶54

2014, that is, after the execution of the deeds of cancellation by the Bengaluru Development Authority. The present position is this, that if the acquisition is upheld, the writ petitioners will lose their lands and, also, would not get title to those lands, which were given to them in lieu of their acquired lands.

¶55

In our view, as the Bengaluru Development Authority accepted the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge and executed a series of deeds of cancellation on March 6, 2014, they have no occasion to file these writ appeals on July 15, 2014.

¶56