Dismissed¶46

Sri Lingaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WA/498/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal under S.4 Karnataka High Court Act; BDA Act 1976; Section 27 lapse of scheme; Nada Prabhu Kempe Gowda Layout; Survey No.91 Bhimanakuppe Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South; consent award 16.11.2019; cash compensation award 15.03.2023; statutory notice 29.04.2023; vesting of land in BDA after award; possession notice not challengeable; substantial development; Single Judge order 16.12.2025 in WP 11302/2023; writ appeal dismissed; interim applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ appeal was dismissed; in view of the dismissal, pending interim applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of (¶47). ¶46

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ appeal was dismissed; in view of the dismissal, pending interim applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of (¶47).

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition/scheme for the “Nada Prabhu Kempe Gowda” Layout had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, entitling the petitioner to challenge the land acquisition proceedings notwithstanding substantial development having taken place in the layout. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The Court found no reason to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings or with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot now challenge the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, when substantial development has taken place in the layout for which the land was acquired.

¶43

Key takeaways

After passing of the award, the land vests in the BDA, for which possession notices have been issued.ratio¶46
Consequently, the petitioner has no ground to challenge the possession notice impugned in the writ petition.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LA-BDA) No. 498 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.; oral judgment per D K Singh, J.), decided 10.03.2026 — dismissed. The appellant (owner of 35 guntas in Survey No.91, Bhimanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk) appealed under S.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the learned Single Judge's judgment/order dated 16.12.2025 in W.P.No.11302/2023, which had rejected his challenge to the statutory notice dated 29.04.2023 concerning acquisition for the “Nada Prabhu Kempe Gowda” Layout under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. A consent award dated 16.11.2019 covered 18.08 guntas at Rs.4,432/- per square feet of developed land (possession taken under mahazar); a cash compensation award dated 15.03.2023 covered the balance, including 4.5 guntas retained by the petitioner. Holdings (all per D K Singh, J., ratio): (i) no reason to interfere with the acquisition proceedings or the impugned order; (ii) the scheme-lapse plea under Section 27 of the BDA Act is untenable when substantial development has taken place in the layout for which the land was acquired; (iii) after the award the land vests in the BDA and possession notices have been issued; (iv) therefore the petitioner has no ground to challenge the possession notice impugned in the writ petition. Pending interim applications stand disposed of. No precedent was discussed or applied.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14166-DB WA No. 498 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2026 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI LINGAIAH S/O. LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 7O YEARS, R/AT NO.301, ESHAANYA 6TH MAIN, ITI LAYOUT, ACHUTH CLASSIC, MALLATHAHALLI, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH-560 056. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:14166-DB WA No. 498 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020

¶21

ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.11302/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.11302/2023, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶30

impugning the judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.11302/2023 filed by the appellant.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:14166-DB WA No. 498 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

¶35

before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶36

The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Survey No.91 situated at Bhimanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. According to the petitioner, in respect of the total extent of 35 guntas of land in the said survey number, preliminary and final notifications came to be issued for formation of "Nada Prabhu Kempe Gowda" Layout. The petitioner had already sold substantial part of the said land to the third parties i.e., prior to the notification under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the BDA Act' ) came to be issued for acquisition. The consent award dated 16.11.2019 was passed by the BDA for 18.08 guntas of land and the petitioner was awarded Rs.4,432/- per square feet of developed land and possession of the said land was taken under the mahazar. For the balance land, cash compensation award dated 15.03.2023 has been passed and statutory notice had been issued to the

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14166-DB WA No. 498 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the statutory

¶40

notice dated 29.04.2023 before the writ Court.

¶41

The learned Single Judge having noticed the aforesaid fact, has rejected the ground taken by the petitioner that the scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, inasmuch as substantial development has taken place in "Nada Prabhu Kempe Gowda" Layout for which the land was acquired. In respect of 18.08 guntas the consent award was passed and for remaining extent of land including 4.5 guntas retained by petitioner, the cash award has been passed.

¶42

We find no reason to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings and the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner cannot now challenge the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the scheme has

¶43

got lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act, when substantial development has taken place in the layout for

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14166-DB WA No. 498 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

which the land was acquired. After passing the award, the land vests in the BDA for which the possession notices have been issued. The petitioner has no ground to challenge the possession notice impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal.

¶47

In view dismissal of the appeal, pending interim applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶50

NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Lingaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lingaiah 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijaya Venkatesh Vs Sri Thiammarayappa

The Commissioner Vs Hanumantharayappa

Mrs. Renu Kapoor Vs Mr. T R Ramachandra

Sri S C Ramachandra Vs State of Karnataka

Ramakrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka