Arun Kumar C J Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE PETITIONERS HAS BECOME LEGALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL, AS THE ACQUISITION SCHEME IS LAPSED AND RESPONDENTS HAVE ALSO NOT TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY SO FAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BDA ACT AND ETC.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33299 WP No. 38793 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the acquisition of land bearing Sy.Nos.46/1 and 46/3, measuring 07 acres 13 guntas including 01 acre Kharab and 1 gunta respectively has lapsed, as the respondents have not taken possession. They have also challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/20082009 dated 21.05.2008 issued by respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore dated 18.02.2010 issued by respondent No.1 for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout.

¶35

The petitioners contend that they are the owners of the aforesaid properties which was acquired by respondent No.1 for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. They contend that no steps are taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take over possession or to pass an award. They contend that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:33299 WP No. 38793 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

implement the scheme within the time prescribed under Section 27 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated

¶41

the above contentions and prays to allow the writ petition.

¶42

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the contentions urged in this petition are no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected writ appeals in respect of the Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, whereby the notifications impugned in this petition were upheld and the landowners having any legitimate grievance against the acquisition of their land were directed to file representations. Respondent No.2 was directed to consider such representations and until such consideration, the respondent No.2 was directed not to dispossess the landowners. He therefore submits that this petition could be disposed off in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected writ appeals.

¶43

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of

¶44

upholding the preliminary notification bearing

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33299 WP No. 38793 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009 dated

¶48

21.05.2008 issued by respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore dated 18.02.2010 issued by respondent No.1 for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. It is however open for the petitioners to take advantage of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.1783/2014 and connected appeals and if they are advised, they are entitled to file representations seeking exclusion of their land on any ground mentioned therein.

¶49

If such representations are filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a representations. Until then, the respondent No.2 shall not take any precipitative action against the property of the petitioners or any structures standing thereon.

¶50

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

HJ

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Arun Kumar C J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar C J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivasamurthy Vs the State of Karantaka

Sri v K Patel Vs the Commissioner

Sri Shaik Irshad Vs the State of

Smt Shobha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Andalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka