Dismissed

Bangalore Development Authority v. C Balakrishna Reddy

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2026WA/1799/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal filed with delay of 974 days challenging an order quashing land acquisition notifications, the High Court of Karnataka held that the lands have been fully developed by private persons. Dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, the court noted a BDA report confirming no layout was formed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed by BDA challenging the quashing of land acquisition notifications is dismissed due to delay of 974 days.

Bangalore Development Authority Vs C Balakrishna Reddy — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1088-DB WA No. 1799 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA ROAD BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA KRUPA WEST

¶13

BANGALORE-560 020 …APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

C. BALAKRISHNA REDDY S/O. LATE SRI C. RAMACHANDRA REDDY SINCE DEAD

¶18

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶19

1(a) CHENNU SAMPOORNAMMA W/O. LATE C. BALAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶20

1(b) CHENNU KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY S/O. LATE C. BALAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

APPELLANTS 1(A) AND 1(B) ARE R/AT

¶22

#164, MAMIDITHOTA SANKURATHRIPALEM RHC POST SANKURATHIPALLE, NELLORE ANDRA PRADESH-524 408

¶23

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1088-DB WA No. 1799 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

SRI M. DHANANJAYA REDDY S/O. MR. N. C. PITCHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT 3^RD CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR C. V. RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 093

¶26

SMT. M. SAMPOORNA W/O. M. DHANANJAYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 3^RD CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR C. V. RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 093

¶27

SRI. M. SHANKAR S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.108/1, DOOR NO.303 VIJAYA BANK COLONY, DODDA BANASWADI BENGALURU-560 043

¶28

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. M. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.108/1, DOOR NO.303 VIJAYA BANK COLONY, DODDA BANASWADI BENGALURU-560 043

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI M. U. NAREN SHAKTI SWARUP, ADVOCATE FOR, SRI M. N. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) & R1(B), R2 - R5; SRI SUDEV HEGDE, A.G.A., FOR R-6)

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.38584/2016 (LA-BDA) TO THE EXTENT OF AWARD OF INTEREST OF GRANTING LIBERTY.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1088-DB WA No. 1799 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶38

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/respondents impugning the judgment and order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38584/2016.

¶39

The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order has quashed the primary notification dated 21.03.1977 and the final notification dated 13.02.1989, as well as the subsequent proceedings in respect of the lands which were sought to be acquired including the lands of the petitioners.

¶40

The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that though the final notification was issued on 13.02.1989, but the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), the appellants herein neither passed any award nor took any

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:1088-DB WA No. 1799 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

steps to take possession of the land despite lapse of more than 32 years in respect of the lands in question.

¶45

The writ appeal has been filed with the delay of 974 days.

¶46

The respondents have filed their affidavit stating therein that after the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, the respondents/petitioners have obtained necessary permissions, got their building plan sanctioned and even, the occupancy certificates have been issued. The area has been fully developed by them.

¶47

To ascertain the aforesaid assertions made by the respondents/petitioners, we, vide order dated 24.11.2025 directed the competent authority of the BDA to file a report regarding the ground realities of the claims of the respondents regarding the construction of the multistoreyed buildings in full compliance of the relevant Rules And Regulations.

¶48

In compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, Mr. Sachin B.S., has filed a memo annexing the report regarding the ground reality of the claims of the

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1088-DB WA No. 1799 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

appellants. The surveyor in his report has stated that BDA in fact has not formed any layout and revenue layout. The photographs of the buildings constructed on the lands have also been annexed.

¶52

Considering the aforesaid facts, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal after such a delay of 974 days when the lands have been fully developed by the private persons and thus, we dismiss this appeal on the ground of delay itself. Any pending application also stands disposed of.

¶53

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶55

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Bangalore Development Authority v. C Balakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. C Balakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shashidhar Vs LIC of India

Karnataka Residential Education Institution Society Vs Sri Jayarama M

M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Smt N a Hemavathi

Sri R. Sharana Basaveshwara Vs Land Tribunal

Sri Ramanjinappa Vs Smt Shanthamma

Sri C K Prakash Vs State of Karnataka