Disposed

Smt Gowramma v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026WP/35079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner claimed 50% developed land in lieu of compensation for acquired land under a government order, opposing the respondent's claim of only 40%. The court noted the existence of a consent award granting 40% and the petitioner's prior sale of the land, directing a specific authori

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to identify 10,781 square feet of developed land and direct its allotment within three months.

Smt Gowramma Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35079 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH, R/AT NO. 16, 50 FEET ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 085.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶17

THE SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶21

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶22

THE ENGINEERING MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560 020.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DT. 19.08.2024 (ANNEXURE E) AND ACCORDINGLY COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER, IN LIEU OF UTILIZATION OF LAND IN SY.NO.156/1, MEASURING 1 ACRE 9 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT BHIMANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK TO AN EXTENT OF 50 : 50 RATIO, AS ALTERNATIVE LAND AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider her representation dated 19.08.2024 and compensate her for acquisition of the land bearing Sy.No.156/1, measuring 01 acre 09 guntas situate at Bhimanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli,

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Bangalore South Taluk. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot 50% of developed land and to pay special damages for unauthorised utilisation of the above land.

¶33

(i) The petitioner claims that she purchased the

¶34

land bearing Sy.No.156/1 situated Bhimanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 01 acre 9 guntas in terms of a sale deed dated 11.08.2001. Her name was entered in the revenue records and she was paying the property tax etc. She claimed that on 21.05.2008, respondent No.1 issued a preliminary notification bearing No.¨ÉAD¥Áæ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/GD(¨sÀÆ¸Áé)/¨sÀÆ¸ÁéD/158/2008-09, followed by a final notification bearing No.AiÀÄÄrr/51/JAJ£ïJPÀì/2010 issued on 18.02.2010 by the State Government, thereby notifying her land for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. The petitioner claimed that since she opposed the acquisition of her lands, the respondents had assured her that an equal extent of alternate land would be allotted to her.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner claims that she believed the representation made by the respondents and remained quiet.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

However, the respondents have failed to keep up their promise. She contends that respondent No.1 passed an award dated 22.04.2025 based on her consent. In the meanwhile she contends that the State Government had approved a scheme whereby respondent No.1 was directed to allot developed sites measuring 10,781 square feet for every acre of land wherever lands are utilised without completing the acquisition process. The petitioner claims that she is entitled to 10,781 square feet of developed land for every acre of her land.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 has utilised 01 acre 05 guntas of land in Sy.No.156/1 of Bhimanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. In that regard, she submitted a representation dated 19.08.2024 seeking allotment of 50% of the developed land in lieu of compensation. Since the said representation is not considered, she seeks an appropriate direction to consider the same.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure - D which is a direction

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

issued by the State Government to the respondent No.1 which reads as follows:

¶44

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À«®èzÉÃ gÀ¸ÉÛ / §qÁªÀuÉ gÀZÀ£ÉUÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ §zÀ¯ÁV ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ,

¶45

G¯ÉèÃR: (1) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå £ÀCE 422 ¨ÉA¨sÀÆ¸Áé 2017 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09-10-2018.

¶46

(2) ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå (1) ¨ÉAC¥Áæ / C¨sÀÆ¸Áé/ 902 /2017-18 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-07-2018 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©rJ/DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/44/2018-19 ¢£ÁAPÀ 07-07-2018.

¶47

ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ. G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ°è£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ 09-10-2018 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå. £ÀCE 442 ¨ÉA¨sÀÆ£Áå 2017 gÀ°è£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶48

(i) ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀîzÉÃ / ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ / ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß dªÀiÁUÉÆ½¹ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À®Ä ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è MAzÀÄ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À®Ä,

¶49

(ii) EAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ «zsÁ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆ¼ÀîzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ, ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À«®èzÉÃ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÁV ±ÉÃ.50gÀµÀÄÖ CAzÀgÉ

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

11979 ZÀ.«ÄÃ. C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¹zÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ªÀgÀ¢/²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CzÉÃ §qÁªÀuÉ CxÀªÁ £ÀAvÀgÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶54

(iii) ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À«®èzÉÃ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀ J¯Áè ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ªÉÄÃ°£ÀAvÉ gÀa¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ®¨sÀå«gÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À §UÉÎ EwÛÃa£À ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¹ÜwAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÁzsÀPÀ-¨ÁzsÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀj²Ã°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¹zÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ

¶55

¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ªÀgÀ¢/ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CzÉÃ §qÁªÀuÉ CxÀªÁ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶56

CzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À«®èzÉÃ gÀ¸ÉÛ / §qÁªÀuÉ gÀZÀ£ÉUÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ §zÀ¯ÁV ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ

¶57

¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À®Ä F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶58

¶59

G¥À DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ,

¶60

PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,

¶61

PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ-1/2/3

¶62

PÀæ.¸ÀA. (ii) & (iii) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ DAiÀiÁAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ/ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ/ G¥ÀPÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÁ¬ÄÝj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

¶66

¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ J¯Áè C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ J¯Áè E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜjUÉ "

¶67

He therefore contends that since the award in respect of the land in Sy. No.156/1 of Bhimanakuppe is passed on 22.04.2025, the petitioner is entitled to 10,781 square feet per acre of land which amounts to 50% of the developed land.

¶68

The writ petition is orally opposed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 who contends that the petitioner is entitled to 40% of developed land as compensation, as Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout was sought to be formed under a scheme formulated by the State Government, whereunder 40% developed land would be allotted in lieu of cash compensation. He therefore contends that the land of the petitioner is covered by the preliminary and the final notifications and hence, she is entitled to only 40% of the developed land. Referring to the Government Order dated

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

10.10.2018 extracted above, the learned counsel submitted that the said Government Order applies only to cases where the respondent No.1 has utilised the land without issuing notifications. He therefore contends that the petitioner is entitled only to 40% of the developed land and not 50% as claimed under the Government Order dated 10.10.2018. He further contends that if the petitioner is interested in claiming 40% of developed land, the respondents would be more than willing to consider her representation and pass appropriate orders granting 40% of developed land in lieu of cash compensation.

¶72

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶73

The acquisition of land in Survey No.156/1 of Bhimanakuppe Village for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the name of the petitioner appeared in the preliminary and final notification. An award is passed on 22.04.2025 in respect of 1-05 acres based on consent of the petitioner, in terms of

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33616 WP No. 35079 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

which, the petitioner is granted 40% developed land, which is equivalent to 10,781 square feet. In view of the consent award, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the possession of the land is not taken over.

¶77

It appears that the petitioner has already agreed to convey the land in Survey No.156/1 of Bhimanakuppe Village in favour of one Mr.C.Sunil Kumar in terms of an agreement of sale dated 08.07.2019 and has received the entire consideration payable thereunder.

¶78

In that view of the matter, it is only appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to identify 10,781 square feet of developed land, which may be allotted either to the petitioner or to any other rival claimant in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶79

9. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

¶80

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶81

HJ/MDS

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Smt Gowramma v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Indira Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Gencor Pacific Transporation and Logistics Private Limited Vs the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. M. B. Somanna Vs the State of Karnataka

The Project Director, Vs Smt. Jyoti

L Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka