Allowed¶61

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri. Chinnanna Reddy

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026WA/3488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal (LA-BDA) — Bangalore Development Authority — land acquisition — lapse of scheme under Section 27 BDA Act — Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 — inapplicability to BDA Act proceedings — delay and laches — award dated 18.04.1984 — writ petition filed 2015 — Sy.No.255 Banaswadi village — W.P.Nos.9761-9764/2015 — parity with W.A.No.3487/2016 (21.06.2021) — Writ Appeal No.1274/2018 (19.04.2021) — Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 1996 KAR 1258 — writ appeal allowed, Single Judge judgment dated 17.03.2016 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2016 in Writ Petition Nos.9761-9764/2015 is set aside. ¶61

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri. Chinnanna Reddy — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2016 in Writ Petition Nos.9761-9764/2015 is set aside.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions filed in 2015 challenging acquisition proceedings pursuant to the award dated 18.04.1984 were barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

The writ petition out of which the instant writ appeal arises was filed in 2015 against an award dated 18.04.1984 in respect of Sy.No.255 of Banaswadi village; there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the writ petition.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned judgment is the same as the impugned judgment in Writ Appeal No.3487/2016 (where, relying on Writ Appeal No.1274/2018 and Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority, the finding of lapsing of the scheme under Section 27 of the BDA Act was held unsustainable and the impugned judgment was set aside), this appeal too is allowed and the Single Judge's judgment dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.Nos.9761-9764/2015 is set aside.

¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Jayant Banerji and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.; per Jayant Banerji, J.) of the High Court of Karnataka allowed Writ Appeal No.3488 of 2016 (LA-BDA) filed by the Bangalore Development Authority and its Land Acquisition Officer against the Single Judge's judgment dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.Nos.9761-9764/2015, by which the landowners' writ petitions had been allowed on findings that the Scheme lapsed under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Held: (i) the award in respect of Sy.No.255 of Banaswadi village was passed on 18.04.1984 whereas the writ petition was filed only in 2015, disclosing inordinate and unexplained delay and laches; (ii) since the impugned judgment was identical to that challenged in W.A.No.3487/2016 (decided 21.06.2021), where the coordinate Bench had declined interference for delay and, placing reliance on the Division Bench decision dated 19.04.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1274/2018 (holding that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to proceedings under the BDA Act) and on Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 1996 KAR 1258, had held that the finding of lapsing under Section 27 could not be sustained, this appeal too was allowed and the Single Judge's judgment set aside.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 3488 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

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

¶11

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. CHINNANNA REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT DODDABANASAWADI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560 044.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, YOGI VEMANA ROAD, I CROSS, BANASAWADI, BANGALORE-560 043

¶20

SRI. R. SEETHARAM S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.255, BANASAWADI, 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR BANK OF INDIA, BANASAWADI POST, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶21

SRI. VENKATESH REDDY SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS.

¶22

4(a). SMT RADHA W/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY MAJOR,

¶23

4(b). LOKESH S/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY MAJOR,

¶24

4(c). SMT ASHA D/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY MAJOR,

¶25

4(d). SRI AKARSH S/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY MAJOR,

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

R4(a) TO (d) ARE R/AT SRI ANJANADRI NILAYA, NO.26, ANKANNA REDDY LAYOUT, BEHIND ANDRA BANK, KALAYAN NAGAR, BBMP, BANGALORE - 560043.

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS A R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; SMT. PRATHIBHA R K., AGA FOR R5; SRI. S N RAMAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SERVICE OF NOTICE R4(a) TO (c) HELD SUFFICIENT V/O. DTD. 12.06.2025; R4(d) SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶32

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

¶33

HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 17.03.2016 IN W.P.NOS.9761-9764/2015.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.9761-9764/2015 whereby, relying upon the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013¹ , the Court held that not only the scheme would lapse for want of taking possession and of substantial implementation of the Scheme in terms of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, but the acquisition itself would lapse by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

¶43

It appears that the first petitioner was the owner of 3 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.255 of Banaswadi village from which he is stated to have sold 20 guntas of land to one Smt.Lakshmidevamma and 22 guntas to Sri.Pilla Reddy and 28

¶44

1 The Act

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

guntas to Sri.Madhavan Pillai. Consequently, the first petitioner holds 1 acre 31 guntas which is described in the schedule to the petition.

¶48

It was held by the learned single Judge that the respondents sought to produce a notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without any supporting material of having taken actual physical possession.

¶49

It appears from perusal of the impugned judgment that the instant writ petition was connected and disposed of along with W.P.Nos.10716-10779/2015. Learned counsel for the BDA has produced a judgment dated 21.06.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3487/2016 (LA-BDA) which arose out of W.P.Nos.10716-79/2015..

¶50

In the aforesaid Writ Appeal No.3487/2016, a coordinate bench of this Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court regarding inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition before the Court after 32 years in the land acquisition proceedings in which an award was passed on 05.02.1983. No plausible explanation was offered by the

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

respondents for the inordinate delay. Therefore, interference was declined.

¶54

In the instant writ appeal, the award in respect of Sy.No.255 of Banaswadi village was passed on 18.04.1984 as it appears on perusal of Annexure-R1 enclosed in the memo filed by the BDA on 29.08.2018. Evidently, the writ petition out of which the instant writ appeal arises, was filed in the year 2015. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the aforesaid writ petition.

¶55

Moreover, as far as lapsing of the Scheme is concerned, the Bench in Writ Appeal No.3487/2016 has referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 19.04.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1274/2018 in which it was held that the provisions of 24(2) of the Act do not apply to the proceeding initiated under the BDA Act. With regard to lapsing of the proceedings under Section 27 of the BDA Act, reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishnamurthy vs. Bangalore Development Authority² . It was held that the finding regarding lapsing of the scheme under

¶56

2 ILR 1996 KAR 1258

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:4491-DB WA No. 3488 of 2016

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

section 27 of the BDA Act cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment was therefore set aside.

¶61

Since the impugned judgment in writ appeal of Writ Appeal No.3487/2016 is the same as the impugned judgment in the instant writ appeal, this appeal too is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 17.03.2016 in Writ

¶62

Petition Nos.9761-9764/2015 is set aside.

¶63

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶64

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶65

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri. Chinnanna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. Sri. Chinnanna Reddy

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 Ravi Kumar G H Vs Smt. Shashikala S N

Sri B Keshava Murthy Vs Corporation of City of Bangalore

Anthony Swamy Vs Maria Michaealammal

D. P. Manju Vs Jyothi. S

Smt Dr Smitha Vs Dr S Sathish

Sri Suresh R Vs Smt Manjula T a