Muniyappa K Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Muniyappa K Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; finding no infirmities in the Writ Court's orders, both writ appeals (W.A.No.979/2016 and W.A.No.865/2016) were dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition for the Hosur Sarjapur Road (HSR) Layout scheme has lapsed under Section 27 (r/w Section 36) of the BDA Act, 1976, on the premise that there was no vesting of the land, so that petitioners are entitled to declaration that their land is free from acquisition. +3 more

Court's answer

Once the acquisition has been completed - possession taken, award passed and amount deposited in Civil Court - even if the scheme is held to have lapsed, the acquisition itself would not lapse; accordingly the petitioners' claims based on lapse of the scheme under Section 27 BDA Act fail (reasoning of the Writ Court expressly adopted by this Court as correct).

Ratio / Principle

Objections to the acquisition had in fact been filed on 24.04.1985 by the father of the petitioners (Ramaiah) together with appellant Chowdappa, showing the petitioners were aware of the notification; the ground of want of notice therefore 'has no legs to stand' and is rejected.

Key takeaways

The plea for parity of relief with the de-notified adjacent land (Sy.No.18/11) is not available in view of the inordinate delay and the changed circumstances on the land.ratio¶184
The claims being made belatedly by 26 years after the completed acquisition, the Division Bench finds no merits in the petitions and holds the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs, as rightly held by the Writ Court.ratio¶186

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (DB: D K Singh & T.M. Nadaf JJ.; judgment delivered per T.M. Nadaf J.), W.A.Nos.979 & 865 of 2016 (LA-BDA), decided 10.06.2026 - Dismissal of writ appeals against orders of the Writ Court upholding completed acquisition of lands in Roopena Agrahara Village for the HSR Layout scheme under the BDA Act, 1976 (preliminary notification 15.12.1984; final notification 28.11.1986; award passed, possession taken under Mahazar, compensation deposited in Civil Court). (1) Plea of want of notice rejected: objections to the notification had been filed in 1985 by the petitioners' predecessor and appellant Chowdappa, showing awareness of the notification. (2) Once acquisition is completed, even if the scheme is held to have lapsed under S.27 r/w S.36 BDA Act, the acquisition does not lapse. (3) Purchasers' suits and appeals culminating in dismissal of SLPs ((2015) 17 SCC 1) had already upheld the acquisition. (4) Claim of parity with de-notified adjacent Sy.No.18/11 unavailable given inordinate delay and changed circumstances; petitions lodged 26 years late attract no relief. Both appeals dismissed; no monetary award.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

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

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)

IN WA No. 979/2016

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

MUNIYAPPA K., S/O KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

SHAMALA, D/O MUNIYAPPA,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

BHAGYA M., D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

RADHA M., D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHAMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

SHAMALA M., D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHAMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

RAVI M., S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

VENKATESH K., S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

NARAYANA K., S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

11(a). SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI R. W/O NARAYANA K. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

11(b). KUMARI RAMYA N., D/O NARAYANA K. AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

11(c). MR. KISHAN KUMAR N., S/O NARAYANA K. AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS R/A NO.11, 1^ST 'A' CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK EAST, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 011.

BHAGYA K., SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,

12(a). SMT. SHASHIKALA, D/O LATE BHAGYA K. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

12(b). SMT. RAJALAKSHMI, D/O LATE BHAGYA K. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

12(c). SRI. MEGHA RAJ, S/O LATE BHAGYA K. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

12(d). SHRUTHI R.

D/O LATE BHAGYA K. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.12(a) TO 12(d) ALL ARE R/AT NO.11, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK EAST, BYRASANDRA JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.

LAKSHMI K., D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

MANJULA K., D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

AMMAYAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.2/1, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMANA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, GOTIGERE POST, 5^TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 083.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION 3^RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 27 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (LA & E)

SRI. VENKATESH, S/O LATE MUNISWAMPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

SRI. M. ASHWATH, S/O LATE MUNISWAMPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

SMT. AMARAVATHI, W/O LATE ANAND, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

SRI. JAGADISH, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.309 10^TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 027.

SRI. PRABAT JIVARAJ PATEL S/O JIVARAJ D. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

SRI. SURESH JIVARAJ PATEL, S/O JIVARAJ D. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

SRI. PRABHUDAS JIVARAJ PATEL, S/O JIVARAJ D. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

SRI. VINOD JIVARAJ PATEL, S/O JIVARAJ D. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT SWASTIKA TIMBER TRADING COMPANY, NO.155 AND 166, HOSUR ROAD, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

SRI. S.V. SHIVRAM, S/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA, R/A NO.3/9, 1^ST MAIN, S.G. PALYA BENGALURU - 560 029.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1, SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 44710/2014 DATED 08.03.2016 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WP NO.44710/2001 AS PRAYED.

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN WA NO. 865/2016

BETWEEN:

S.R. CHOWDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

1(a). PREMAMMA, W/O LATE S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

1(b). RENUKA, D/O LATE S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

1(c). VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE P.M. RAMASWAMY, D/O S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

1.(d). LAKSHMI C.

D/O LATE S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

1(e). LAKSHMAN MURTHY, S/O LATE S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

1(f). PRABHAKAR S.C. S/O LATE S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

1(g). PREMKUMAR, S/O LATE S.R. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

S.R. MUNICHOWDAPPA, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A NO.85, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA, DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 029.

S.R. MUNIYAPPA, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A NO.85, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA, DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 029.

S.R. VENKATESH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

4.1. PARVATHAMMA,

W/O LATE S.R. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

4.2. GAYATHRI, D/O LATE S.R. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

4.3. SRIKANTHA S.V. S/O LATE S.R. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.14/50, CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, DRC POST, BANGALORE - 560 029.

...APPELLANTS

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

(BY SRI. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

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

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

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1, SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION.33608/2013 AND WP NO. 35833-834/2013 DATED:26.02.2016 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)

These intra Court appeals are by the unsuccessful petitioners in W.A.No.979/2016, assailing the order dated 08.03.2016 in W.P.44710/2014, and in W.A.No.865/2016, assailing the common order dated 26.02.2016 in W.P.No.33608/2013 & W.P.Nos.35833-834/2013 passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Court by means of the impugned order dismissed the petitions, holding that the acquisition proceedings having been completed, even if it is held that the scheme has lapsed the acquisition would not, and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs and accordingly, dismissed the petitions and the petition in W.P.No.44710/2014 on the order passed in W.P.No.33608/2013 & W.P.Nos.35833-834/2013.

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Writ Court.

Facts in brief leading to file these appeals are as

under:

The petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking

for the following reliefs:

In W.P W.P.44710/2014:

I. Issued a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to enforce the scheme called "HSR layout as against 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.18/10 of situated at Rupena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk more fully described in the Schedule below in view of lapsing of acquisition in terms of section 27 R/w section 36 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act 1976, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in offshore holdings private limited V/s BDA report in (2011) 3 Section 139 para 124 and in SLP 877/2014 Pune Municipal Corporation and another.

II. Declare that, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of BDA Act, 1976 for the scheme called layout between Hosur Sarjapur Road has lapsed under Section 27 in view of the fact that there is no vesting of the land and land is free from acquisition. Based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in Prahalad Singh and others V/s. Union of India and others reported in (2011) 5 Section 386.

III. Issued writ in the nature of declaration declaring that any action taken pursuant to the preliminary Notification bearing No.HUD295MNX84 dated

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

13 -

HC-KAR

15.12.1984, and final Gazette Notification, No.HUD444MNX86, dated 28.11.1986 vide Annexure-K&L published by the Respondents for implementation of layout called HSR layout as having no consequence in the eye of law and illegal in so far as it concerns the Petitioner an extent 1 acre 30 guntas in Roopena Agrahara Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, in the interest of justice and equity.

IV. Any other writ or order of direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case.

In W.P.No.33608/2013 & W.P.Nos.35833-834/201:

"a) If the respondents produce any documents to show that the property of the petitioners is acquired under the Scheme shall lapse under Section 27 of the B.D.A Act;

b) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

Heard Sri.K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, learned counsel

for appearing for appellants, Sri.V.Vishwanath Shetty for impleading applicant on I.A.No.4/2016, Sri.S.H.Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri.Harish N.N.,

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

learned counsel for respondent No.4, and

Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13 in W.A.No.979/2016.

Heard Sri.Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior

counsel assisted by Sri.Rahul S.Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellants, Sri.S.H.Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.A.No.865/2016.

By means of preliminary as well as final Notification dated 15.12.1984 gazetted on 17.01.1985 and 28.11.1986 gazetted on 25.12.1996, the lands in Roopena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, including the land of the petitioners bearing Sy.No.18/10 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas, phoded into Sy.No.18/10A measuring 22 guntas, Sy.No.18/10B measuring 26 guntas and Sy.No.18/10C measuring 26 guntas were acquired.

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

Consequent upon the acquisition, award was passed and possession of the lands were taken by the respondent authorities and the properties stood vested with Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for short). As per the revenue record, at the time of preliminary Notification, the land in respect of Sy.No.18/10 was concerned was standing in the name of A.Srinivasa Rao and Ramaiah, S/o Pillaiah as the notified Khatedars. In respect of land in Sy.No.30/4 is concerned Ramaiah, S/o Pillaiah, was the notified khatedar and in respect of Sy.No.30/5 is concerned Sri.P.Srinivas Rao, Sri.S.R.Venkatappa and Sri.Tholappa were the notified khatedars.

On 24.04.1985, after preliminary Notification, objections were filed to the Notification against the acquisition of land by the father of the petitioners herein i.e., Sri.Ramaiah along with Sri.Chowdappa (appellant No.1 herein), as per document No.1 produced with the affidavit filed in support of the case of the BDA dated 09.11.2025. Upon consideration of the objections, final

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

Notification was issued thus acquiring the lands stated supra. The award was passed in respect of the lands and amount was deposited in Civil Court. Thereafter, the possession was taken under Mahazar as per the document No.5. The petitioners and their predecessors have sold the lands in question to several persons, wherein some of the purchasers in the above lands have filed suit in O.S.No.2832/2002 and O.S.No.2833/2002, for declaration that they are absolute owners of the properties in question and for injunction and thereafter sought an amendment to seek a declaration of title by way of adverse possession. The suit was contested by the BDA, which were resulted in

decree in the suits, and were subject matter in RFA.Nos.1186/2005 and 1187/2005. The said regular appeals were allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree. Similarly, other suits were filed in O.S.Nos.3075/2000, 6925/2001, 5742/2001, 7945/2000

and 5791/2001, for declaration of title and injunction. The suits were decreed and set aside in the appeal filed by the

17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

BDA in RFA.No.911/2002 c/w RFA.Nos.912, 914,

915/2002 & 916/2002.

The plaintiffs therein unsuccessfully carried the same in Special leave petitions, wherein all the appeals were dismissed upholding the acquisition and taking possession of the lands as per the judgment reported in the case of M.Venkatesh and Others Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority¹ as per document No.15 in the said appeal.

After losing the case upto the Supreme Court, the said purchasers taken another chance, by filing writ petition before this Court, challenging the acquisition and sought for lapsing of the scheme in W.P.No.54402404/2015, which ended in dismissal by means of order dated 26.02.2016, W.A.No.662/2016 & W.A.No.87980/2016 filed were also ended in dismissal by means of order dated 27.04.2016.

1 (2015) 17 SCC 1

18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

In the interregnum the petitioners filed the present writ petitions in W.P.Nos.33608/2013 and 35833834/2013 seeking declaration that the acquisition made in respect of very same land in question has lapsed and the same was dismissed vide impugned order.

The other branch of Pillaiah filed

W.P.No.44710/2014 seeking lapsing of scheme in respect of entire land in Sy.No.18/10 of Roopena Agrahara Village, and questioning the acquisition proceedings, which ended in dismissal by means of order dated 08.03.2016, on the ground that the petition filed by the Uncle of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of W.A.No.865/2016 i.e., W.P.Nos.33608/2013 and 35833834/2013, on the premise that the award passed and possession taken, the entire acquisition once completed, cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

Sri.Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for

the appellants in W.A.865/2016 has taken two grounds: viz., firstly , that no notice was issued to the father of the petitioner. It is further contended that in the preliminary Notification, the name of the father of the petitioner was not mentioned, however, the name of the original jodidars has been mentioned, who had been divested of the land and as such the entire Notification insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, are not sustainable.

Secondly , is that in respect of Sy.No.18/11 which is adjacent land, has been de-notified. Since the land in question is also standing on the same footing, the same relief can be granted.

The said submissions were opposed by Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of BDA. The leaned Senior counsel taking us through the document produced as document No.1, wherein the father of the petitioner Ramaiah as well as

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

one of appellant Chowdappa were the persons who have

filed objections to the Notification.

A perusal of the said document clearly demonstrate that father of the petitioner and one of the petitioner by name Chowdappa had filed their objections to the land acquisition. This fact clearly indicates that the petitioners were aware of the Notification, as such the first ground invoked by the petitioners has no legs to stand and is liable to be rejected and accordingly, is rejected.

It is germane to mention here that the entire land acquisition proceedings completed in the year 1986 and ended at the most in the year 1988 by the passing of the award and taking possession and depositing the amount before the Civil Court. A claim was made subsequent to the claim by the purchasers, which has ended in dismissal upholding the acquisition. The suits which were filed ended in dismissal upholding acquisition and possession taken up till Supreme Court. The claim

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

now made belatedly by 26 years. The ground of similarity

is not available in view of inordinate delay and changed circumstances on the land. The Writ Court having found that the cases relied on by the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand, in view of the fact that the possession has been taken, award has been passed and amount is deposited in Civil Court. In that view of the matter, once the acquisition has been completed, even if it is held that the scheme has lapsed, the acquisition would not. Accordingly, rejected the petitions on the ground that these writ petitioners are not entitled for any claim.

We having considered the entire case as put

forth by the BDA by way of affidavit along with the concerned documents, are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs as rightly held by the Writ Court. Accordingly, we find no merits in the petitions, as they are filed after considerable delay of 26 years.

22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28080-DB WA No. 979 of 2016 C/W WA No. 865 of 2016

HC-KAR

In that view of the matter, we having found no

infirmities in the order passed by the Writ Court, dismiss

both the appeals.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 ct-vn

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the acquisition for the Hosur Sarjapur Road (HSR) Layout scheme has lapsed under Section 27 (r/w Section 36) of the BDA Act, 1976, on the premise that there was no vesting of the land, so that petitioners are entitled to declaration that their land is free from acquisition.medium confidence¶127
The court held
Once the acquisition has been completed - possession taken, award passed and amount deposited in Civil Court - even if the scheme is held to have lapsed, the acquisition itself would not lapse; accordingly the petitioners' claims based on lapse of the scheme under Section 27 BDA Act fail (reasoning of the Writ Court expressly adopted by this Court as correct).ratio¶184
2.
Whether the notification/acquisition is unsustainable on the ground that no notice was issued to the father of the petitioner and his name was not mentioned in the preliminary notification.¶172
The court held
Objections to the acquisition had in fact been filed on 24.04.1985 by the father of the petitioners (Ramaiah) together with appellant Chowdappa, showing the petitioners were aware of the notification; the ground of want of notice therefore 'has no legs to stand' and is rejected.ratio¶179
3.
Whether petitioners are entitled to the same relief as adjacent Sy.No.18/11, which was de-notified, on the ground that their land stands on the same footing.medium confidence¶173
The court held
The plea for parity of relief with the de-notified adjacent land (Sy.No.18/11) is not available in view of the inordinate delay and the changed circumstances on the land.ratio¶184
4.
Whether petitions challenging a completed 1986-88 acquisition only 26 years later, barred by delay, can sustain any relief.¶186
The court held
The claims being made belatedly by 26 years after the completed acquisition, the Division Bench finds no merits in the petitions and holds the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs, as rightly held by the Writ Court.ratio¶186