C. v. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

B.K.PRABHAKAR, S/O LATE R.KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT W-29, 1^ST FLOOR, BASAPPA GARDEN, PIPELINE 'C' MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003

¶12

SMT. GEETHA SACHINDRAN, W/O SRI.SACHINDRAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT W-29, BASAPPA GARDEN, PIPELINE 'C' MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003

¶13

SMT. KOUSALYA MADHUSUDANA W/O MADHUSUDANA

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT.CHETHANA, D/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/C, MIG-1, 16^TH 'A' CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201

¶17

SMT. P. AMBUJA, D/O PULLAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560021

¶18

SMT. ASHA.K, W/O NARENDRA K., REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SMT. CHETHANA, D/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/C, MIG-1, 16^TH 'A' CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573201

¶19

SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O M.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, "ISHANI", MUNIHANUMAIAH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU-560094

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. SOMASEKHARA K.H., ADVOCATE)

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶26

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶27

THE SPCL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

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

¶30

SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND DIRECT THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPORT DATED 11.11.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RECOMMENDING TO DELETE THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.53 MEASURING 1 ACRE 19 GUNTAS OF SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-Z.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the report dated 11.11.2014 submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, recommending the deletion of land bearing Sy.No.53 of Srirampura Village, Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶38

(i) The petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of Site No.11, the petitioner No.2 claims that his wife is the owner of Site No.47, petitioner No.3 claims to be the owner of Site No.28, petitioner No.4 claims to be the owner of Site No.19, petitioner No.5 claims to be the owner of Site Nos.17 and 18, while petitioner No.6 and one Smt. Usha claim to be the owners of Site Nos.35 and 42, all formed in Sy.No.58 of Srirampura Village, Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Likewise, the petitioner No.7 is the owner of Site No.23, petitioner No.8 is the owner of Site Nos.16, 26 and 27 formed in Sy.No.53 of Srirampura village, Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, they having lawfully purchased it under separate sale deeds.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

(ii) The petitioners claim that they are all in possession

¶42

of the aforesaid sites. They contend that the land in Sy.No.53 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and Sy.No.58 measuring 17 guntas was notified for acquisition for formation of Arkavathi Layout. The petitioners claim that the owners of sites in Sy.Nos.53 and 58 had formed an Association named, M/s. Nisarga Layout Welfare Association and they filed W.P.Nos.14958-14972/2014 and W.P.No.15335/2014 for a direction to consider their representation for deletion of their land from acquisition. The said writ petitions were disposed off in terms of an order dated 13.06.2014 and the respondents were directed to consider the representation in the light of the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs.

¶43

Bangalore Development Authority and others [(2010) 7

¶44

SCC 129] . Petitioners contend that on 07.07.2014, they submitted a representation to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with a copy of the order passed by this Court dated 13.06.2014. After the representation was given, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer conducted a spot inspection and submitted a report to the respondent No.3 on 11.11.2014, who recommended to delete the land bearing Sy.No.53 measuring 1

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

acre 19 guntas on the ground that adjacent lands have been deleted from acquisition. It is contended that though the Land Acquisition Officer submitted report to the respondent No.3, no decision is taken till date. However, without considering the recommendation, the respondent No.3 is now trying to form a layout in the land in question and trying to dispossess the petitioners. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the report submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent No.3.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated

¶50

the above contentions.

¶51

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the acquisition for Arkavathi Layout in terms of the notification dated 23.02.2004 stood modified in terms of a modified notification dated 18.06.2014 and that the land in question was also notified. He contends that the petitioners have not challenged the modified notification. Be that as it may, he contends that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the modified notification dated 18.06.2014 had

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

constituted a Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana to go into the questions of discrimination in the matter of acquisition of land. He therefore, contends that the report submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent No.3 has now lost significance as the land in Sy.No.53 of Srirampura Village, Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is again notified in terms of the modified notification dated 18.06.2014. He therefore, submits that the petitioners be directed to appear before the Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana and make a request for exclusion of their lands.

¶56

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶57

learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶58

A report was submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent No.3 on 11.11.2014 recommending exclusion of the sites purchased by the petitioners. However, by that time, a modified notification was issued by the State Government on 18.06.2014, notifying land

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

in Sy.No.53 of Srirampura Village, Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Ideally, the petitioners must have challenged the said notification. However, persons similarly placed as the petitioners had approached this Court challenging the modified notification dated 18.06.2014 alleging that there were large scale discrimination in the matter of identifying lands for acquisition. This Court noticing that the issue required a thorough examination, constituted a Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Keshavanarayana to go into the questions whether there was any discrimination in the matter of identifying lands for acquisition or whether the lands were liable to be excluded from acquisition on the criteria mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and others , referred supra. Therefore, the report submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent No.3 has now lost significance and the right if any of the petitioners is to approach the Commission constituted by this Court headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Keshavanarayana. In that event, the claim of the petitioners for exclusion of the land in question could be considered. Consequently, no direction can be issued

¶62

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to act upon the report of the Additional Land Requisition Officer dated 11.11.2014. Instead, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana by filing appropriate representations seeking exclusion of their land on any ground permitted.

¶65

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed off permitting the petitioners to appear before the Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Keshavanarayana and submit their representation seeking exclusion of their lands from acquisition on any ground available to them as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others [(2010) 7 SCC 129], referred supra. If a representation is filed, the Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Keshavanarayana shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

¶66

It is needless to mention that the order passed by

¶67

this Court, ignoring the report submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer will not in any way influence the Commission

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:30050 WP No. 13844 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

in deciding the representation filed by the petitioners. Until the consideration of the representation of the petitioners, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not disturb the possession of the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall not put up any construction of whatsoever nature in the lands in question.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

C. v. Rajesh v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. v. Rajesh v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Mangala Gowri Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Rathnamma Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Sri. Nanjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dominic Savio D Souza Vs the Commissioner

Sri D Purushotham Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)