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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Endorsement dated 18.02.2026 at Annexure-J set aside; matter remitted to respondent-BDA for fresh consideration of the representation at Annexure-E; respondent-BDA directed not to demolish the petitioner's property till such orders are passed; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement at Annexure-J dated 18.02.2026, which rejects the petitioner's representation (Annexure-E) made pursuant to the directions in W.A.No.1783/2014 without stating any reasons, is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The directions in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters confer certain rights on the land owners; a representation made pursuant to such directions requires an order to be passed with reasons, and the endorsement issued does not refer to any such reasons.

Ratio / Principle

The endorsement at Annexure-J is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent-BDA for fresh consideration of the petitioner's representation at Annexure-E.

Key takeaways

Until fresh orders are passed on the representation, the respondent-BDA may not demolish the petitioner's property; all contentions are kept open.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition – BDA – endorsement dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure-J, No. BDA/LAO/LAC/2025-26) issued by Addl. Land Acquisition Officer stating that pursuant to the notification the award has been approved, the authority intends to proceed further and possession has been taken, and rejecting the petitioner's representation (Annexure-E) made pursuant to the directions in W.A.No.1783/2014 – directions in the writ appeal confer rights on land owners, so a representation made pursuant to such directions requires an order passed with reasons – endorsement is non-speaking and refers to no reasons – endorsement set aside – matter remitted to respondent-BDA for fresh consideration of the representation – BDA restrained from demolishing petitioner's property till fresh orders – all contentions kept open – writ filed under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India.

NC: 2026:KHC:14338 WP No. 7678 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO. 7678 OF 2026 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI VASANTH KUMAR S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT GANGADIPURA VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 091

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

THE COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14338 WP No. 7678 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST

BENGALURU - 560 020

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 020.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A.S. HARISH, AGA FOR R1; SRI G. LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE NO. BDA/LAO/LAC/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED 18.02.2026 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the

endorsement dated 18.02.2026 at Annexure-J.

In terms of the endorsement at Annexure-J,

pursuant to the notification, the award has been approved.

It is further submitted that the authority intends to

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14338 WP No. 7678 of 2026

HC-KAR

proceed further pursuant to the award being passed. It is further observed in the endorsement that possession has been taken.

The petitioner submits that in terms of the order

in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters, certain directions have been issued in the operative portion of the order and in terms of said directions, the petitioner had made representation to the respondent-BDA requesting for dropping of acquisition proceedings on the ground that the property is situated in the green belt and there is a building in the remaining extent of about 5 to 6 guntas.

The petitioner further submits that the endorsement at Annexure-J is a non-speaking order and does not make out any case for rejecting the application at Annexure-E, which is a representation made pursuant to the order in writ appeal.

Learned Counsel Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, appearing

for the respondent-BDA upon instructions submits that

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14338 WP No. 7678 of 2026

HC-KAR

18 meter road runs through the property of the petitioner and possession has been taken.

However, it must be noticed that directions in W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters confers certain rights on the land owners. The representation made pursuant to such directions requires order to be passed with reasons. The endorsement issued does not refer to such reasons.

Accordingly, the endorsement at Annexure-J is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent-BDA for fresh consideration as regards the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-E.

Needless to state, till such orders are passed,

respondent-BDA may not demolish the property of the petitioner. All contentions are kept open.

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

NP