Partly allowed¶¶35

Sri Narayana N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026WP/11973/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Betterment charges; BDA Act 1976 Section 21(1) show-cause notice; Section 21(4) remedy; Bangalore Development Authority Commissioner; Special Land Acquisition Officer (Development Tax); endorsement No.R.No.2024/62617 dated 15.10.2024; demand notices dated 12.10.2025; objections filed 27.04.2026; writ petition disposed, allowed in part; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, 2026; Justice R. Nataraj.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part: demand notices issued by respondent No.3 treated as show-cause notices under Section 21(1) of the BDA Act; respondent No.2 to consider objections filed by the petitioners on 27.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders; all contentions kept open to be urged before respondent No.2; I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 stand disposed of. ¶¶35

Sri Narayana N Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement No.R.No.2024/62617 dated 15.10.2024 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Annexure-A) should be quashed. +1 more

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition deserves to be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the impugned demand notices as show-cause notices under Section 21(1) of the BDA Act, to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

The impugned demand notices issued by respondent No.3 shall be treated as show cause notices under Section 21(1), and respondent No.2 shall consider the objections filed by the petitioners on 27.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders.ratio¶¶34
If the assessment is not agreed by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy as provided under Section 21(4) of the BDA Act.obiter¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (R. Nataraj, J.), Oral Order, 04.06.2026 — WP No. 11973 of 2026 (BDA): Petitioner Narayana N. challenged endorsement No.R.No.2024/62617 dt. 15.10.2024 of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and demand notices dt. 12.10.2025 of respondent No.3 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Development Tax) demanding betterment charges, contending they were issued without show-cause notice required under S.21(1) of the BDA Act, 1976. During pendency the petitioner filed objections to the demand notices. The court disposed of the petition, allowing it in part: the demand notices are to be treated as show-cause notices under S.21(1); respondent No.2 (Commissioner, BDA) is to consider the objections filed on 27.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders; all contentions are kept open; if the assessment is not agreed, the petitioner may avail the remedy under S.21(4) of the BDA Act; I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 stand disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:26384 WP No. 11973 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11973 OF 2026 (BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NARAYANA N. S/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, NEAR NAGARJUN COLLEGE, RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560064.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560020.

¶16

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (DEVELOPMENT TAX) RAMANGONDANAHALLI T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26384 WP No. 11973 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶21

SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTHANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.R.NO.2024/62617 DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged the an endorsement bearing No.R.No.2024/62617 dated 15.10.2024 issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as demand notices dated 12.10.2025 issued by respondent No.3 demanding betterment charges.

¶27

The writ petition is filed on various grounds one of which is that the impugned demand notices are issued without issuing appropriate show-cause notices as required under Section 21(1) of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act' for short).

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26384 WP No. 11973 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

During the pendency of this writ petition, the

¶32

petitioner has filed objections to the demand notices.

¶33

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is deserves to be disposed off directing respondent No.2 to consider the impugned demand notices as show-cause notices under Section 21(1) of the BDA Act and to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders.

¶34

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in part . The impugned demand notices issued by the respondent No.3 shall be treated as show cause notices under Section 21(1) and the respondent No.2 shall consider the objections filed by the petitioners on 27.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders.

¶35