Sri S N Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.01.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy. No. 9/3A measuring 1 acre 2 guntas of Sampigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The details of the property are morefully described in the schedule.

¶26

Petitioner submits that proceedings for acquisition have been initiated. It is further submitted that though challenge to the acquisition was rejected, by virtue of the directions in W.A.No.2625/2004 an opportunity was given to the land owners to make representations. The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court and certain guidelines have been issued.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:724 WP No. 8 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

It is further submitted that a Committee has

¶31

been set up viz., Hon'ble Justice Keshavanarayana Committee to look into the aspects of applicability of guidelines. The Committee has been conferred with the power to consider the representations of the land owners

¶32

and to ascertain whether lands could be deleted from acquisition, if circumstances are made out as detailed in the guidelines issued by the Apex Court.

¶33

The observations of this Court in

¶34

W.P.No.51929/2014 at Para 91(b) and (d) are as follows:

¶35

"b) The Committee shall also consider the representations of the land owners submitted to BDA which shall be placed before the Committee to ascertain as to whether the lands of the applicants are landlocked and/or adjacent lands having been dropped from acquisition without dropping the lands of the applicants. The Committee shall examine the claim on case to case basis and on being satisfied either such claim being genuine or being contrary to factual scenario shall prepare a report village wise and forward the same to the BDA to enable the said

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:724 WP No. 8 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

authority to either delete such lands from acquisition or conclude the acquisition.

¶40

d) The Committee shall examine as to whether the claim of land owners for deleting their lands from being acquired is within the parameters or the directions issued by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court in BONDU RAMASWAMY’s case and if so, shall submit a report to the BDA to the said effect and pursuant to the same BDA shall take steps accordingly to either delete the land or proceed with allotment of the sites to the applicants that may be formed in such lands."

¶41

Petitioner submits that while he was

¶42

contemplating to move the Committee for deletion of his property, respondent - BDA sought to change the nature of property and hurriedly petitioner made representation on 03.01.2026 copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. It is submitted that this representation made to the BDA is required to be placed before the Committee and till the Committee were to take a decision, respondent - BDA may be directed not to change the nature of the land.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:724 WP No. 8 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel for

¶47

the petitioner submits that apart from the representation at Annexure-A dated 03.01.2026, another representation was earlier made by the petitioner to the respondent - BDA copy of which is produced at Annexure-J dated 27.10.2021.

¶48

Learned counsel for the BDA would submit that the representation was given on 03.01.2026 and petitioner rushed to this Court without giving reasonable opportunity for considering the representation.

¶49

Taking note that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his request in terms of the directions as regards deletion of his land, it would be appropriate and would meet the ends of justice by disposing of the petition itself on the following terms:

¶50

(a) Petitioner's applications if already placed before the committee to be decided as per applicable law.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:724 WP No. 8 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(b) Till such applications are decided by the Committee, both parties to maintain status quo as on date.

¶55

Accordingly, petition is disposed of . All

¶56

contentions are kept open.

¶57

It is to be noticed that the guidelines which are to be kept in mind by the Committee are issued pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswami v. Bangalore Development Authority and others - (2010) 7 SCC 129 (Civil Appeal No.4097/2010 & connected matters) . The Committee is required to examine the possibility of deleting the lands from acquisition or to record a finding to conclude the acquisition. If there is a mandate to the Committee to examine the request of the land losers and pass appropriate orders, it would be appropriate for the Bangalore Development Authority to consider passing a circular or office order whereby insofar as pending

¶58