Sri Mohammed Zaheer Vs Bangalore Development Authority

36(A) SMT. SUMITHRA W/O. NARAYANAPPA D/O. LATE SUBBALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. NAGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI SINGENAYAKANAHALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 064

¶84

SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶85

8 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA R/O. NO.669/5, BUNDAPPA ROAD YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU-560 040

¶89

SRI K. NARAYANAPPA AGED MAJOR S/O. KEMPAIAH R/O. NAGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 064

¶90

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE AMARESH N. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶91

SMT. AMBUJA A. D/O. LATE AMARESH N. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶92

SRI NAVEEN KUMAR A. S/O. LATE AMARESH N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶93

SRI SHIVAKUMAR N. S/O. LATE N. B. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶94

SMT. LATHA H. W/O. LATE SRINIVASMURTHY N. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶95

SMT. PUSHPA S. D/O. LATE SRINIVASMURTHY N. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶96

SMT. NANDAN S. W/O. LATE SRINIVASMURTHY N. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶97

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

SMT. GEETHA M. W/O. LATE SURENDRA N. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶100

KUMARI AMRATHA S. D/O. LATE SURENDRA N. AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶101

MASTER GNANESH GOWDA S/O. LATE SURENDRA N. AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

¶102

SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.47 AND 48 I.E., KUMARI AMRATHA S., AND MASTER GNANESH GOWDA ARE MINORS, BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. GEETHA M. BY R-46

¶103

SMT. PADMA N. W/O. LATE VASU D/O. LATE N. B. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶104

SRI MANJUNATH N. S/O. LATE N. B. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶105

RESPONDENT NOS.30 TO 50 ARE RESIDING AT 90, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI SINGENAYAKANAHALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 064

¶106

…RESPONDENTS

¶107

(BY SRI SHARATH N., ADVOCATE FOR R-10; SRI T. M. CHOWDA REDDY ADVOCATE FOR C/R14; SRI V. M. LAKSHMIPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R32; SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R31)

¶108

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/01/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.10028/2024(LA-BDA) AND ALLOW THE PRAYERS AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANTS IN WP NO.10028/2024(LA-BDA).

¶111

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

¶112

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

¶113

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶114

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

¶115

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10028/2024 (LA-BDA), filed by appellant herein.

¶116

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge, for the sake of convenience.

¶117

The petitioner, who claims right on the basis of some unregistered agreement of sale in respect of the land in question initially challenged the land acquisition proceedings

¶118

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

in respect of the lands in Item Nos.1 to 28, for which the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act' ) was issued on 30.05.1988 and thereafter, the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued on 15.03.1989.

¶121

The land owners' challenge to the said acquisition proceedings in W.P.Nos.8188-8201/1989 before the learned Single Judge, met with success vide order dated 11.07.1996.

¶122

M/s.Trinity House Building Co-operative Society, which was respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.8188-8201/1989 challenged the order dated 11.07.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.7543-7557/1996 and connected matters. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2004 allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶123

12 -

¶124

NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

The owners challenged the decision of the Division

¶127

Bench before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) Nos.13656-13684/2004. However, the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.09.2016 dismissed the said S.L.Ps.

¶128

The petitioner who claims right on the basis of some unregistered Agreement to sell and power of attorney filed impleading applications before the Supreme Court in the pending Civil Appeals. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the applications with the following observation:-

¶129

"45. The Impleadment Application Nos.74-102 of 2010 filed in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.13656-13684 of 2004 are also liable to be rejected, as the applicant therein claims to be the power-of-Attorney(s) holder of some of the lands in question and agreements of sale. Since he neither approached the High Court nor this Court by way of filing SLPs and neither the agreements of sale nor the power of attorney(s) confer any right upon him at this time, as the same is barred by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1952, provisions of the Specific Relief Act as well as the Limitation Act, the

¶130

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

applicant has no legal right to come on record to challenge the impugned judgment and therefore the Impleadment Applications are rejected, as the same are wholly unsustainable in law."

¶133

After the Supreme Court decided the issue finally, the appellant/petitioner has filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2026 has dismissed the writ petition by observing as under :-

¶134

"This Court was following the judgment of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court holds that an agreement holder registered or unregistered would not get any right whatsoever, as the instrument of conveyance requires the agreement of sale to be taken to its logical conclusion, which has not happened therein and which did not happen in the case at hand as well. Therefore, the agreements of sale have remained as agreements. Thus, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation, plainly on the observation of the Apex Court on his impleading application, as quoted hereinabove."

¶135

We see no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the

¶136

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:14071-DB WA No. 636 of 2026

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

learned Single Judge inasmuch so far as the rights of the petitioner on the basis of unregistered agreement of sale and power of attorney are concerned, the Supreme Court has already decided the issue finally and nothing is left to

¶139

be decided by this Court. Therefore, we dismiss this writ appeal.

¶140

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

¶141

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶142

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶143

NG CT: VC LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3

Sri Mohammed Zaheer v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Zaheer v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Manager Vs the President

Mrs Vinodamma Since Dead Represented by Her L.R Sri. Suresh.S Vs the Managing Director

Sri K Harikrishna Vs Sri D v Manjunatha

Mysuru City Corporation Vs Smt C Devarathna

K Balaji Vs the Assistant General Manager State Bank of India

State of Karnataka Vs R M Mariswamy