Dismissed

Smt Akkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/30902/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged land acquisition under the BDA Act claiming possession was never taken and award not passed within five years. The court found an award was passed in 1987, compensation deposited with the Civil Court, and possession taken via mahazar; the suit filed by petitioner in 1988 showed knowledge. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' LRs at liberty to avail benefit under Section 38-D of the BDA Act if in possession of the acquired portion prior to 2008, subject to limitations therein.

Smt Akkamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30902 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. AKKAMMA W/O BEERAPPA, SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S

¶9

1(a) SRI. RADHAKRISHNA S/O LATE AKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O NO.31 (RAGE) 2^ND MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

1(b) SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O K. MUKUNDA D/O LATE AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO.2957, 13^TH B MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1(a) AND 1(b))

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560020.

¶20

M/S. SRI LAKSHMI MALUBLES PVT. LTD SY.NO.52, NAYANDAHALLI, BANGALORE-560039 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M.R. RAJATH, S/O LATE M. RAMACHANDRA

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

SRI. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3;

¶24

VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2018, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT

¶25

CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.05.2022)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE PETITION PROPERTY IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION IN NO.A6.HR.SLAO(S)201/82-3 DATED 15.07.1982 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION IN NO.HUD 249 MNX 85 (STATED AS BDA.SLAO.A6.PR/85-86 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 16.08.1985, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (STATED AS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND L RESPECTIVELY IS LAPSED SINCE POSSESSION IS NOT TAKEN AND NO AWARD HAS BEEN PASSED IN

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FINAL DECLARATION AND THE LAND IS FREE FROM ACQUISITION AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner since deceased and represented by her legal representatives has sought for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land bearing Sy. No.48 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 01 Acre 20 guntas, which was notified in terms of a preliminary notification bearing No.A6.HR.SLAO(S)201/82-3 dated 15.07.1982 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'the BDA Act') and the final notification bearing No.HUD 249 MNX 85 dated 16.08.1985 issued by the State under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act and where there is reference to notification No.BDA/SLAO/A6/PR/ /85-86, has lapsed since the possession of the said property is not taken by the BDA and award is not passed in accordance with law. She

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

has sought for a direction to the respondents to forbear from implementing any development Scheme so far as the aforesaid land is concerned as Section 36 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the BDA Act’) is inoperative in respect of the said land. She has also sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20.04.2012 and 19 sale deeds all dated 26.04.2012 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.4 in respect of the petition schedule property are unenforceable and not binding on the petitioner and to delete the land from acquisition.

¶37

The petitioner contends that she purchased the aforesaid land in terms of a sale deed dated 19.11.1980 and has been in possession of the same ever since the date of purchase. She claimed that the revenue entries were changed to her name in respect of the petition schedule property and in that regard, she has produced copy of RTC extracts for the years 1988-89 to 1991-92, 1992-93 to 1996-97 and 1997-98 to 2001-02. She claimed that she had sold parts of the aforesaid land after forming sites in favour of prospective purchasers. One of the sites was also gifted to her son, namely,

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sri Radhakrishna, petitioner No.1(a), who had constructed a house there and is residing along with his family. She also claims that many purchasers who had purchased the sites have constructed residential houses and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. She also claims that all those houses constructed have been provided with all civic amenities. She contends that the aforesaid land was notified for acquisition for formation of 'Nagara Bhavi Layout 1^st Stage' vide a preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 followed by a final notification dated 16.08.1985. She contends that the possession of the aforesaid land was not taken within the stipulated time i.e. five years from the date of the final notification and therefore, the respondent No.2 has abandoned the acquisition. She also claims that she was not issued with a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the L.A. Act') regarding the compensation payable and therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 has no authority to dispossess her as the land is not vested in it. She contends that since the respondent No.2 interfered with her possession initially in the year 2005 and later in the year 2012, she filed two suits for perpetual injunction, namely, O.S

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Nos.10645/2005 and 26311/2012 before the Court of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said suits were dismissed by the Trial Court on 19.02.2014 and 05.08.2013 respectively, which are challenged before this Court. She contends that except passing an award, no attempt is made by the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and no attempt is made to deposit the compensation after duly intimating the petitioner. She claimed that on 20.04.2012 and 26.04.2012, the respondent No.2 had executed one sale deed and nineteen sale deeds respectively, in favour of the respondent No.4, who trespassed into the aforesaid land and put up huge construction. She contends that no layout is formed and no works are carried out in respect of the land in Sy. No.48 of Nagarabhavi Village and hence, the sale deeds executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.4 are unenforceable. She contended that out of 47 Acres and 38 guntas of land in Sy. No. 48, only 28 Acres 23 guntas of land was the subject matter of a final notification and possession of the said extent was taken over. However, the respondent No.2 had failed to take possession of the property of the petitioner. In this regard, she relied upon a mahazar dated 30.07.1987

¶44

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(Annexure 'Q'), which shows that the same was drawn by the Revenue Inspector attached to the office of the respondent No.3 at the time of taking possession of the land in question and that the petitioner had not signed the said mahazar . She contends that the land bearing Sy. No.127 of Nagarabhavi village is part of the land bearing Sy. No.48 of the said village. She contended that the land owned by her was re-numbered, bifurcated from the parent survey number and re-numbered as Sy. No.127. In this regard, she submitted a representation dated 27.12.2007 before the Tahasildar to enter her name in respect of the aforesaid land in the revenue records. She later filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information about the works carried out in the land bearing Sy. Nos.48 and 127 and the allotment of sites made in the aforesaid survey numbers. She contended that the Assistant Executive Engineer, No.3 Sub-division (West) of the respondent No.2 - BDA issued an endorsement on 31.12.2013 stating that no work was carried out in respect of the land in Sy. No.48. She also contended that she sought information as to what is the minimum requirement before allotment of a site in any layout by the BDA and that the respondent No.2 issued

¶47

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

an endorsement No.31.12.2013 to the effect that formation of roads, drainage and electricity supply are the minimum requirements before allotment of sites. She contended that under Section 27 of the BDA Act, if possession of the land notified is not taken within five years from the date of final declaration, acquisition would lapse as held by the Apex Court in the case of Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others [(2011) 3 SCC 139] . The petitioner had preferred this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing on record to show that possession of the land in question was taken over by the respondent No.2 and therefore, he submits that the acquisition is abandoned by the respondent No.2. In support of this contention, he relied upon a mahazar dated 30.07.1987 drawn by the Revenue Inspector attached to the office of the respondent No.3, which showed that possession of 28 Acres 23 guntas of land in Sy. No.48 was taken by the respondent No.2 and that the petitioner had not signed the said mahazar and it was not drawn in her presence. He also contends that the Land Acquisition Officer inspected the

¶51

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

land in question on 12.06.1987 and he found that some structures were existing on the land, although he claimed that these structures were put up after the publication of the preliminary notification. He thus contends that there is material to establish that the property in question is already developed and there is no scope for the respondent No.2 to form a layout in the land in question. He also invited the attention of this Court to a few photographs and contended that the petitioner has already constructed a residential house on the property in question, which establishes beyond doubt that the respondent No.2 has not taken over possession of the petition schedule property. He, therefore, prays that the acquisition qua the land in question has lapsed as possession is not taken by the respondent No.2.

¶54

The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who contend that the petitioner has concealed true and material facts and has approached this Court with unclean hands and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner has claimed in the writ petition that she has sold parts of the land in favour of some purchasers. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the

¶55

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

acquisition of the land in its entirety. It is also claimed that the petitioner is not residing on the land in question and the assertions made in the writ petition are all false. The filing of suits by the petitioner in O.S No.10645/2005 and O.S No. 26311/2012 is admitted. It is contended that the land in question along with other lands are acquired for the purpose of formation of 'Nagarabhavi Layout'. It is claimed that an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12.06.1987 and possession of the land in question was taken over by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 30.07.1987 and the same was handed over to the Engineering Section of the respondent No.2 for formation of the layout on 15.08.1987. Thereafter, a notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A Act was issued on 06.07.1991. Thus, it is claimed that the land in question is vested in the respondent No.2 and the petitioner has no subsisting right, title or interest over the land. It is also claimed that after the land was handed over to the Engineering Section, a layout has been formed and sites are allotted to various applicants.

¶58

A further statement of objection is filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein it is contended that in the

¶59

11 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

final notification, the names of the occupants were shown, which included the name of the deceased petitioner herein. It is claimed that out of 31 Acres 23 guntas of land in Sy. No.48 of Nagarabhavi Village proposed for acquisition, an extent of 03 acres was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer of the Revenue Department on behalf of the House Building Cooperative Society of Employees of the Income Tax Department, in respect of which a separate notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act was published on 30.10.1986. It is also claimed that an award was passed determining the compensation payable in respect of 28 Acres 23 guntas of land on 12.06.1987 which was approved by the Commissioner of respondent No.2 on 14.07.1987. The award amount of Rs.18,80,235/- was transferred to the City Civil Court for apportionment under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the L.A Act. The respondent No.2 claimed that there were 96 rival claimants in respect of the acquired land. It is therefore contended that the acquisition is complete in all respects and the land is vested in the respondent No.2. It is claimed that once the land is vested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, the land does not get divested. It is further claimed

¶63

12 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

that the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.7510/2023 Land

¶67

and Building Department through Secretary and another

¶68

v. Attro Devi and Others had held that when the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, the land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession and anybody retaining possession thereafter has to be treated as a trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners have no right to assail the impugned notifications that too at this point in time.

¶69

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the acquisition is complete in all respects and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner (now deceased) had earlier filed a suit in O.S No.342/1988 for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent No.2 herein from demolishing the structures or forming any road in the suit property i.e. land bearing Sy. No.48 of Nagarabhavi Village, measuring 01 Acre 20 guntas. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner was fully aware of

¶70

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

the notifications issued by the BDA to acquire the land in question for the formation of Nagarabhavi 1^st Stage Layout. However, the petitioner (now deceased) has chosen to challenge the notifications in the year 2014 and hence, the writ petition is not bona fide but is barred by time and hence, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner.

¶73

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶74

learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1(a) and 1(b) and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶75

The notification dated 15.07.1982 issued by the BDA under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act reflected the name of Smt. Akkamma. In the final notification too, her name is mentioned. It also appears from the records furnished by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that an award in respect of the extent of the land acquired was passed and compensation was transmitted to the Civil Court for deposit and for apportionment under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the L.A Act. There is also some material to show that an extent of 28 Acres 23 guntas of land in Sy. No.48 of Nagarabhavi Village was taken over by the respondent No.2 and a mahazar dated

¶76

14 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

30.07.1987 was drawn by the Revenue Inspector attached to the office of respondent No.3 to the above effect. The very fact that the petitioner had filed O.S No.342/1988 against the respondent No.2 wherein, she had referred to the act of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, trying to demolish the house constructed on the suit property and take possession, establishes beyond doubt that the petitioner was fully aware of the acquisition of the land in question. The challenge to the final notification dated 16.08.1985 in the year 2014 is therefore highly belated. Except claiming that she was in possession of the property as on the date of the proposal of preliminary notification, the petitioner has not furnished any clinching documentary evidence in that regard. Since the award is passed by the respondent No.3 and the compensation is deposited and the possession of the land in question is taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner cannot continue to contend that she is in possession of the land in question. It is needless to mention that when large extent of land is acquired, it is not necessary for the acquiring authority to physically take possession and it is sufficient if the Authority walks over the land and declares to the general public that the possession of

¶80

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:29304 WP No. 30902 of 2014

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the land in question is taken. Since the entire acquisition is completed, the petitioner cannot assail the impugned notifications on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as the possession of the land is question is not taken. In that view of the matter, no indulgence is warranted in this writ petition.

¶83

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed . However, if the petitioner's legal representatives are in possession of the acquired portion of the land prior to the year 2008, they are at liberty to avail the benefit under Section 38-D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, subject of course to the limitations prescribed therein.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

SMA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt Akkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Akkamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt B Mangala Gowri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. C. Krishne Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Gangadhareshwara Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri K a Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T R Gangadharaswamy Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri v M Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)