R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27693 WP No. 51926 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51926 OF 2015 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE K.R.RAJASHEKHARAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.85, KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 056.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SRI. GOWTHAM DEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27693 WP No. 51926 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020 VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA) ALAO/158/2008-09, BANGALORE DATED 21.05.2008 PUBLICATION IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON 22.05.2008 VIDE PUBLICATION NO.498 AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT SL NO.534 AT PAGE NO.29 FOR SY.NO.81/1A OF KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK MEASURING 28 GUNTAS VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged a preliminary notification bearing No.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/ALAO/158/2008-2009, Bangalore, dated 21.05.2008 and final notification bearing No.UDD 51 MNX 2010, Bangalore, dated 18.02.2010, issued by respondent No.1 in respect of Sy.No.81/A situate at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. He has also challenged an award notice bearing

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27693 WP No. 51926 of 2015

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

No.L.A.C.No.501/2009-10 dated 14.08.2013 issued by respondent No.3.

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Sy.No.81/1A of Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 28 guntas. The aforesaid land was proposed for acquisition for formation of 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout'. Following the proposal, a final notification was issued declaring the intent of the State Government to acquire the aforesaid land for the purpose of formation of 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout'. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acquisition for formation of 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout' came up for consideration before this Court in a batch of writ petitions and the same is upheld by the learned Single Judge. He contends that the Division Bench of this Court has also upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and has also upheld the notification subject to certain conditions. He therefore, prays that this writ petition also be disposed off on similar lines.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:27693 WP No. 51926 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the above fact but he contends that the petitioner has not raised contentions which are the basis of the judgment passed in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals. He therefore, prays that the petition be disposed off by considering the contentions urged by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶33

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶34

A perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the only formidable ground urged by the petitioner is that his

¶35

objection to the preliminary notification is not considered. He has also claimed that he and his brothers had made representation dated 22.12.2011 to respondent No.3 requesting to allot developed sites in respect of 2 acres and pay compensation for the remaining 4 guntas of land. This therefore, establish beyond doubt that the petitioner had acceded to the acquisition. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the acquisition on specious ground.

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27693 WP No. 51926 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals, is not justified as the petitioner has not raised any ground such as that the land in question lies within the green belt or is used for raising nursery or is completely built up or is used for charitable/religious institutions. Therefore, the benefit given to the landlosers by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected appeals, cannot be extended to the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned notifications issued by the respondent No.1.

¶39

However, it is relevant to note that 'Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout' was formulated under the incentive scheme in terms of which, 40% of the developed land would be allotted to the landloser. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that 40% of the developed land proportionate to the holding of the petitioner is granted at the earliest.

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:27693 WP No. 51926 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed off. The reliefs sought for the petitioner is rejected. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to allot 40% of the developed land to the petitioner proportionate to his holding in Sy.No.81/1A of Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

PMR

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

R Kumaraswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Kumaraswamy v. the 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

Mr K M Rasheed Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karntaka

Sri Yellappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rajan P Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs the State of Karnataka