Landowner whose land was acquired for Suryanagar Phase 2 layout was granted only 8232.85 ft. of developed land despite a later Government Order extending a 50% developed land compensation package to Phase II. The court held the endorsement arbitrary and quashed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11818 OF 2015 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O D. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HINNAKKI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562106 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORESEMENT DATED 09.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-BOARD IN NO.KHB/SLAO/505/2014-2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.PÀUÀȪÀÄA/«¨sÀƸÁéC/505/2014-2015 dated 09.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to allot 50% of the developed land in respect of the land belonging to her in Sy. No.95/2 of Hinnakki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 03 Acres 37 guntas, which is acquired for formation of Suryanagar Phase 2 layout and issue an allotment letter forthwith to the petitioner.
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 for formation of Suryanagar Phase 2 layout. Petitioner claims that the State Government had issued an order dated 02.12.2010 directing the respondent No.1 - Board to provide developed sites to the land owners at the ratio of 60:40 in lieu of cash compensation. Consequently, she gave a representation to the respondent No.1 - Board to allot 40% of the developed sites. She also filed a writ petition in W.P No.41110/2010 before this Court for quashing the preliminary notification dated 01.04.2005. The said petition was dismissed in terms of the order dated 29.06.2012 holding that the land in question cannot be deleted from acquisition as the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the Scheme formulated by the State Government. She contends that the respondent No.1 at its Board meeting held on 24.11.2009 passed a resolution to provide 40% of the developed land in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. This was followed by a resolution dated 19.06.2012 in terms of which, the respondent No.1 resolved to allot 40% of the developed land in respect of Giddenahalli, Jigala, Yadavanahalli and Adhigondanahalli of Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, to land losers. However, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 09.01.2015 to
HC-KAR
the petitioner stating that she is entitled to 8232.85 ft. as per the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer and hence, made a provisional allotment of 8232.85 ft. in Suryanagar Phase 2 layout. When questioned as to why 40% of developed land amounting to 9583 ft. was not granted to her, she was informed that 9583 ft. was applicable only in respect of acquisition of land for Suryanagar Phase 3 layout and that the same yardstick is not applicable to Suryanagar Phase 2 layout.
NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015
HC-KAR
in lieu of cash compensation, the impugned endorsement granting 8232.85 ft. is illegal and calls for interference.
which, it had extended the compensation package to 50% of developed land in respect of Suryanagar Phase II. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with 50% of developed land subject to the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order.
HC-KAR
dispute the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
dated 14.09.2021 in terms of which, it had extended the compensation package of 40% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation in respect of those lands that were acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962. It is also not in dispute that the State Government has later reviewed the said Government order and has granted the benefit of 50% of developed land even in respect of Suryanagar Phase II. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner was denied the benefit of 50% of developed land as compensation. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement dated
NC: 2026:KHC:29957 WP No. 11818 of 2015
HC-KAR
09.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 is arbitrary and colourable and hence warrants interference.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the endorsement granting lesser developed land instead of the Government-ordered 50% developed land in lieu of cash compensation for acquired land was valid.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rathnamma
The Karnataka Housing Board
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board
The State of Karnataka
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
