The Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the writ appeal was dismissed without costs, leaving the Single Judge's order intact.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge (setting aside the land acquisition proceedings qua the petitioner's land in view of the BDA recommendation and the Denotification Committee decision) suffers from any illegality, warranting interference in this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, since the learned Single Judge gave effect to the decisions of the BDA and the Denotification Committee to delete the petitioner's land from the acquisition proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

When the BDA, the State Government and the Denotification Committee have all taken a unanimous decision to delete the petitioner's land from the land acquisition proceedings, the notification ought to have been issued by the State Government for de-notifying the land.

Key takeaways

The writ appeal lacks merit and is dismissed, without costs.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.; judgment per D K Singh, J.) dismisses, without costs, Writ Appeal No.656 of 2025 (LA-BDA) filed by the Bangalore Development Authority under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the Single Judge's order dated 14.11.2022 in W.P. No.6876/2021 (LA-BDA), whereby the land acquisition proceedings were set aside qua the petitioner's land. The BDA had itself recommended deletion of 43 acres 25 guntas (including the land in Sy No.16/3, Thalaghattapura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South) by communication dated 09.04.2008, and the Denotification Committee had resolved to leave out that total extent including the petitioner's land; yet no de-notification notification followed. Holding that where the BDA, the State Government and the Denotification Committee unanimously decided to delete the land, the State Government ought to have issued the de-notification notification, and that the Single Judge merely gave effect to these decisions, the Bench found no illegality in the impugned judgment and no merit in the appeal.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12644-DB WA No. 656 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M. V. CHARATI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ROOM NO. 36, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

BYYA REDDY S/O LATE CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT THALAGATTAPURA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 062. SINCE DEAD AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS .

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12644-DB WA No. 656 of 2025

HC-KAR

2(a) SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O LATE BAYYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT VAJARMUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET THALAGHATTAPURA

BENGALURU-560 062.

2(b) SRI ESWARA REDDY S/O LATE BAYYA REDDY.C. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 92/1, KAGGALIPURA MIAN ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE VASADEVAPURA THARALU, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 082.

2(c) SRI SHASHIDHAR REDDY S/O LATE BAYYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT No.64, POLICE STATION, THALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 062.

2(d) B.SUGUNA, D/O LATE BAYYA REDDY, W/O N. GOPINATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT Mo.70, KANAKAPURA ROAD, THARALU, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560082.

KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE KODANDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12644-DB WA No. 656 of 2025

HC-KAR

No.50, VAJARA MUNESWARA TEMPLE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, THALAGATTAPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 062.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.6876/2021 (LA-BDA), AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANT ANY SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

Heard Sri M V Charati, learned counsel for the appellantBangalore Development Authority (BDA), has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect, not only in law but also on facts. He

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12644-DB WA No. 656 of 2025

HC-KAR

submits that the appellant-BDA, wrongly recommended for deletion of the petitioner's land vide communication dated 09.04.2008.

However, as per the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the stand of the State was that after the communication dated 09.04.2008 was received from the BDA for deleting the total extent of 43 acres 25 guntas land which would include the land of the petitioners in Sy No.16/3 situated at Thalaghattapura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South, the matter was placed before the Denotification Committee and the Denotification Committee resolved and decided vide its proceedings dated 17.12.2008 to leave total extent of 43 acres 25 guntas of land including the petitioner's land from the land acquisition proceedings.

Despite the recommendation of the BDA and decision of the Denotification Committee dated 17.12.2008, when the notification did not come for deletion of the petitioner's land from the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner had filed the writ petition.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12644-DB WA No. 656 of 2025

HC-KAR

The learned Single Judge having noticed these facts i.e., the recommendation of the BDA itself to delete the petitioner's land from the land acquisition proceedings vide communication dated 09.04.2008, the State Government placing the matter along with the recommendation of the BDA with its comments before the Committee, and decision of the Committee dated 17.07.2018 for deleting total extent of 43 acres of 25 guntas of land from the land acquisition proceedings, allowed the writ petition and held that so far as the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the petitioner's land was concerned, the same stood set aside.

When the BDA, the State Government as well as the Denotification Committee all have taken unanimous decision to delete the petitioner's land from the land acquisition proceedings, the notification ought to have been issued by the State Government for de-notifying the land.

We, therefore, do not find that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has given effect to the decisions of the BDA and the Denotification

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12644-DB WA No. 656 of 2025

HC-KAR

Committee. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed , however, without costs.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13