B G Udyog Vs State of Karnataka

B.G. UDYOG A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN / COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. B.G. JAGANNATH S/O LATE B. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SITE NO.67, 15^TH CROSS ROAD, 3^RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560078

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARSHA SWAROOP P., ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI. ADITHYA KARTHIK K.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Location:HIGH COURT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED (BMRCL), A JOINT VENTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER / LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:26027 WP No. 4955 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

SRI. HARISH H.N., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE "NO.:B.M.R.C.L./BHUSWA/PHASE-3/PACKAGE-1/202526/10169 DATED:" AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.2 BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, SEEKING TO TAKE AWAY 13.77 SQUARE METRES (APPROXIMATELY 148.2 SQ. FT.) OF THE FRONTAGE OF SITE NO. 67, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND WITHOUT INITIATING ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice bearing No. B.M.R.C.L/BhuSwa/Phase-3/Package-1/2025-26/10169 dated 'Nil' issued by respondent No.2, on the ground that the same is without authority of law, and for a declaration that the schedule property was never acquired under any law governing land

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26027 WP No. 4955 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

acquisition and continues to remain a private property. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondents from in any manner interfering with or obstructing the ingress and egress to the schedule property.

¶32

(i) The petitioner contends that it is the owner of commercial property No.67 situated on 15^th Cross road, 3^rd phase, J.P.Nagar, Sarakki Industrial Layout, Bengaluru. It is its contention that the aforesaid property was allotted to it by Bengaluru Development Authority, where it has constructed a building and put the same to commercial use. It is contended that during 2024-2025, respondent No.2 proposed to construct a double-decker flyover/Metro project and in that regard issued a communication bearing No.C1-429 requiring the petitioner to give up a portion of the property.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner contends that the aforesaid action of respondent No.2 was without authority of law, as there was no preceding preliminary notification, final notification, declaration or award. It is further contended that respondent No.2 has now issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to hand over certain title documents so as to proceed with the

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:26027 WP No. 4955 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

acquisition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice is before this Court challenging the notice.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ministry of Urban Affairs, which has a 50% stake in respondent No.2 and is a limb of the Central Government, was not consulted and no approval was obtained for the double-decker flyover/Metro project. He therefore submits that respondent No.2 cannot issue a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish the title documents.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel for

¶40

respondent No.2 submitted that the notice impugned in this petition is innocuous in as much as, it only calls upon the petitioner to furnish title documents so as to proceed with the acquisition. He contends that the rights of the petitioner are not affected in any manner whatsoever. He also contends that if a notification is issued proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions available in law. He thus submits that at this stage, there is no need to interfere with the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:26027 WP No. 4955 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶45

respondent No.1 reiterates the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶46

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶47

The petitioner has challenged a notice issued by respondent No.2 by which, it was called upon to furnish documents so that the acquisition of the portion identified for the double-decker flyover/metro project could be initiated. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this notice does not affect the rights of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. If the petitioner has any grievance, he has to work out the same only after a proposal is formalized by issuance of a preliminary notification and a final notification is issued to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26027 WP No. 4955 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The contention of the petitioner that the Ministry of

¶51

Urban Affairs has not approved the project does not, in any way, affect the notice issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to furnish documents so that the proceedings in accordance with law are taken up.

¶52