Sri Lokesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Lokesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioners entitled either to cash compensation with interest from the date of the Final Notification until deposit, or to developed sites under the 60*40 scheme in lieu of cash compensation; BDA to consider applications for such allotment and, where the cash option is chosen, to pay the compensation as directed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order/report dated 23/09/2025 of the K N Keshavanarayan Committee in KNKC No.195/2022 (Challakere), rejecting deletion of the petitioners' Challakere village lands from the land acquisition proceedings, could be quashed by writ of certiorari. +2 more

Court's answer

The land acquisition proceedings, having been upheld through several rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court, stand concluded; there is no question of re-examining the issue, i.e., the lands cannot now be deleted from the acquisition.

Ratio / Principle

The fact-finding Committee constituted by the High Court gave fair findings stating the reasons why the land in question cannot be deleted from the land acquisition proceedings.

Key takeaways

The petitioners are entitled either to compensation or to developed land under the 60*40 scheme.ratio¶68
If the petitioners choose cash compensation, they must be adequately compensated by payment of interest from the date of the Final Notification until the amount is deposited.ratio¶68
If the petitioners apply for allotment of sites under the 60*40 scheme, the BDA must consider the application and allot the sites in lieu of the cash compensation; otherwise the compensation shall be paid as directed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (DB — order per D K Singh J; T M Nadaf J signatory) disposed of W.P.No.35163/2025 (LA-BDA) filed under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the order dated 23/09/2025 in KNKC No.195/2022 (Challakere) — the report of the K N Keshavanarayan Committee rejecting deletion of the petitioners' Challakere village lands from acquisition under the Final Notification dated 18.06.2014. Holding that the acquisition had been upheld in earlier litigation up to the Supreme Court (Bondu Ramaswamy v. BDA, (2010) 7 SCC 129) and the issue was concluded, the Court declined to reopen deletion; it instead directed that the petitioners receive either cash compensation with interest from the date of the Final Notification until deposit, or developed sites under the 60*40 scheme in lieu, with BDA obliged to consider and allot such sites. Counsel's contention that the award amount was undeposited and no award notice issued did not lead to quashing of the acquisition.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO. 35163 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI LOKESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.706, HRBR LAYOUT, CHALLAKERE VILLAGE, RING ROAD, KALYANANAGRA POST, BENGALURU 560 043

Digitally

signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. YASHODHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.47, HRBR LAYOUT, CHALLAKERE VILLAGE, RING ROAD, KALYANANAGRA POST, BENGALURU 560 043 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

SMT. PADMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.706, HRBR LAYOUT, CHALLAKERE VILLAGE, RING ROAD, KALYANANAGRA POST, BENGALURU 560 043 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

SMT. RADHAMMA,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.101, UDAY NAGARA, DOORAVANI POST, BENGALURU 560 043

&PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A. ABHINAV RAMANAND., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 020.

R4 DELETED VIDE HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED:02.03.2026 &RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.S.ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; VIDE ORDER DATED:02.03.2026 R4 IS DELETED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN KNKC NO.195/2022 (CHALLAKERE) AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the report of the K N Keshavanarayan Committee constituted by the High Court in W.P.No.51929/2014 and connected writ petitions. The report submitted in the case in KNKC No.195/2022(Challakere) relates to W.P.No.30494-97/2013 and representations made by the petitioners in those writ petitions seeking deletion of their lands from the land acquisition proceedings.

The brief facts have been noted by the Committee in its report. The Committee has taken note of the previous proceedings and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 . The said Committee has been constituted to examine the validity and legality of deletion/inclusion of the lands in the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

Final Notification dated 18.06.2014 issued by the State Government. After hearing the parties, the Committee has submitted the detailed report.

The Committee has made the following

recommendations:

"RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

1. Representations/Applications submitted by;

(i) Applicant No.1 Sri S Venkatesha Reddy seeking deletion of 27^1/2 guntas in Sy.No.6 and 24 guntas in Sy.No.7;

(ii) Applicant No.2 Sri Ramesh Reddy seeking deletion of 9^1/2 guntas in Sy.No.11 and 06.60 guntas in Sy.No.135/B;

(iii) Applicant No.3 Sri S Nagaraja Reddy seeking deletion of 3^1/2 guntas in Sy.No.6; 6.60 guntas in Sy.No.11 and 6.60 guntas in Sy.No.135/B;

(iv) Applicant No.4 Sri. S Surendra Reddy seeking deletion of 9^1/2 guntas in Sy.no.6 and 06.60 guntas in Sy.No.135/B; and

(v) Applicant No.7 Sri Lokesh Reddy seeking deletion of 28^1/2 guntas and 16 guntas in Sy.No.135/B.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

All of Challakere village be rejected and acquisition in respect of the above lands be taken to its logical end.

2. If absolute sale deeds to any of the allottee of sites formed in the above lands have not been executed, the same shall be executed within three months from the date of receipt of this Report and a compliance Report in this regard shall be submitted to this Committee.

3. In the event of any of the Applicants 1 to 8 submitting Application seeking relief under Section 38-D of Bangalore Development Authority Act, in relation to the structures existing on the lands in question, the same be considered by BDA in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

Forward this report to BDA for further action.

4. In the event of the owners of lands in question opting for allotment of developed sites by way of compensation in lieu of acquisition of lands, same be accommodated in the lands in question itself".

Mr. A. Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners submits that though the award has been passed in respect of the land in question, but the amount has neither been deposited in the treasury nor in the

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

Civil Court. It is further submitted that no notice has been issued to the land owners for the award and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

The land acquisition proceedings have been upheld in the several round of litigation upto the Supreme Court and therefore, there is no question of re-examining the issue which has been concluded. The fact finding Committee constituted by the High Court has given its fair findings mentioning the reasons why the land in question cannot be deleted from the land acquisition proceedings.

The petitioners are therefore entitled either for compensation or the developed land under 6040 scheme. If the petitioners choose to receive the cash compensation they must be adequately compensated by paying the interest from the date of Final Notification till it is deposited. If the petitioners makes the application for allotment of these sites under 6040 scheme, the BDA must consider the application and allot the sites in lieu of the cash compensation. However, if they choose to take the cash compensation, they should be paid the compensation as directed.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18312-DB WP No. 35163 of 2025

HC-KAR

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is

disposed of .

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17