Disposed

Smt P N Niranjani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/35087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged BDA preliminary and final notifications acquiring her lands for a layout. She then sought 40% developed land instead of compensation; respondents agreed. The court disposed of the petition directing allotment of 1,12,360 sq ft of developed land, with contiguous demarcation if feasible.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to allot 1,12,360 sq ft developed land to petitioner within two months; contiguous block of 32,360 sq ft to be considered if feasible.

Smt P N Niranjani Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35419 WP No. 35087 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35087 OF 2024 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. P.N. NIRANJANI WIFE OF LATE HMS KUMAR, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 560060

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ARUN B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020, BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:35419 WP No. 35087 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) AND (3) OF THE BDA ACT DATED 21.05.2008 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 22.05.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/18/2008-2009 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING (I) SY.NO.214, MEASURING 3 ACRES 36 GUNTAS (INCLUDING 4 GUNTAS KHARAB) AT SL.NO.619, (II) SY.NO.46, MEASURING 7 ACRES 33 GUNTAS AT SL.NO.480, TOTALLY MEASURING 11 ACRES 29 GUNTAS OF KOMAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND SUBSEQUENTLY FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.02.2010 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE BEARING NO.UDD 51 MNX 2010 ON 28.02.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE AFORESAID LANDS OF THE PETITIONER AT SL.NOS.450 AND 570, RESPECTIVELY ARE NULL AND VOID 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 called in question a preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/20082009 dated 21.05.2008 issued by respondent No.2 and the final notification bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010 dated

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35419 WP No. 35087 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

18.02.2010 issued by respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.214 and 46 of Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 36 guntas (including 4 guntas Kharab) 7 acres 33 guntas and (totally measuring 11 acres 29 guntas respectively). She has also sought for a direction to set aside the resolution of respondent No.2 dated 31.07.2024 in proceeding No.83/2024 insofar as the aforesaid properties are concerned and to set aside the notice dated 03.10.2024.

¶30

(i) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the aforesaid lands, which were proposed for acquisition by respondent No.2 for the formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. Following the preliminary notification, respondent No.1 issued a final notification declaring its intention to acquire the lands for implementation of the development scheme, in terms of which the land losers were entitled to 40% developed land in lieu of monetary compensation.

¶31

(ii) The petitioner claims that several lands notified for acquisition were deleted from the acquisition proceedings on various grounds, including that such lands were being utilized

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35419 WP No. 35087 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

for the purpose of a nursery, etc. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings insofar as they relate to the aforesaid lands.

¶35

When this petition is listed in the orders list, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2/2026 dated 13.07.2026 stating that the petitioner would be satisfied if 40%

¶36

of developed land, measuring 1,12,360 square feet, is allotted. It is prayed that, if feasible, an area measuring 32,360 square feet be allotted in one contiguous portion and the remaining extent of 80,000 square feet be allotted in the same layout.

¶37

The learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that if the petitioner restricts her claim to 40% of the developed land, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no qualms in considering the case of petitioner. However, insofar as the petitioner's request to demarcate and allot an extent of 32,360 square feet in one contiguous block is concerned, learned Senior counsel submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 would examine the feasibility of such allotment and if feasible, would take steps to demarcate and allot the said extent.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:35419 WP No. 35087 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In view of the aforesaid application - I.A.No.2/2026

¶42

filed by the petitioner, the challenge to the acquisition has become academic. Therefore this petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to allot 1,12,360 square feet of developed land to the petitioner in the same layout, subject to verification of the petitioner's entitlement and the relevant records. If feasible, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider demarcating and allotting 32,360 square feet in one contiguous block, having regard to the petitioner's intention to establish a school for physically disabled children, an orphanage and an old age home for women. This shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt P N Niranjani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P N Niranjani v. State of Karnataka

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

B M Shiva Kumar Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt P S Shamala Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Manjula Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Prabhulinga Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri. Sonne Gowda Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs State of Karnataka