Sri. K. C. Krishne Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. K. C. KRISHNE GOWDA S/O K.C.CHANNABASAVAIAH @CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 01.

¶15

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

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

¶17

ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE -560 020. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R-1 SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE- A AND A-1-THE AND PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED. 21-05-2008 IN FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED. 18-02-2010 IN UDD/51/MNX/2050 BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)ALAO/158/2008-09, IN RESPECT OF SY. NO. 158/1, MEASURING 6 ACRES 15 GUNTAS, INCLUDING 2 ACRE 15 GUNTAS OF KARAB LAND, SITUATED AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 and the Final Notification dated 18.02.2010 in respect of Sy.No.158/1, situated at Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶27

Petitioner contends that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.158/1 of Ramasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 6 acres 15 guntas, which is acquired by respondent No.1 for formation of

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. Petitioner contends that several lands lying in and around the aforesaid property are excluded from acquisition and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be treated alike. He therefore, has challenged the impugned Notifications.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the above submissions and contended on the eastern side of Sy.No.158/1 there is Sy.No.158/2 of Ramasandra Village, which is developed by one Bhagyalakshmi, on the western side of Sy.No.158/1 there is Sy.No.43/1 of Sulikere Village, which is developed by one Kannauj Bel, likewise, on the southern side of Sy.No.158/1 there is Sy.No.42 of Sulikere Village, where a brick factory is set up, while on the northern side of Sy.No.158/1 there is Sy.No.31/1C of Ramasandra Village, which is developed by MBC Company. He therefore contends that properties situated at all four sides of the property in question have not been utilised for formation of layout, hence the petitioner has sought no objection from respondent Nos.2

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

and 3 to develop his property. However, respondents did

¶35

not conduct any mahazar or inspection and have not passed any award.

¶36

Per contra, the writ petition is opposed by

¶37

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 who contended inter alia that the present petition is not maintainable as the same is filed belatedly and the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is also contended that after the Final Notification was issued, notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued and the same was received by the father of the petitioner on 13.09.2010, who did not object the acquisition. It is contended that since the father of the petitioner did not turn up to claim 40% of the developed land, award was passed in accordance with law on 15.11.2012, which was approved on 04.07.2013. It is also contended that the possession of the land was taken and handed over to the Engineering Section of the BDA on 08.09.2015. Further, it is contended that the family members of the petitioner

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

herein have raised objections against releasing compensation on the ground that the property acquired belongs to them and it is their ancestral property and the Power of Attorney set up by the petitioner is fabricated and therefore, requested respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to release the compensation to the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner has no right to seek for quashing of the acquisition proceedings as the petitioner is claiming right, title, interest and possession over the aforesaid property in terms of the Release Deed dated 09.10.2013 allegedly executed by his father. It is also contended that the contentions urged by the petitioner that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short “the said Act of 2013”), the land is not available to the petitioner as the acquisition is not under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With these and other contentions, respondents pray that the petition be dismissed.

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶44

further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to reliefs, more particularly regarding challenge to the acquisition notifications, which have already attained finality in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs. Sri. R. Shankaran and another – W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters, Dated 22.02.2024. He however submits that if the petitioner has any grievance over the acquisition of his land on the ground that other adjacent lands are left out of acquisition, he may submit a representation giving particulars of the lands left out of acquisition and respondent Nos.2 and 3 would consider the same, in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, referred supra.

¶45

In view of the fact that the acquisition

¶46

notifications have already attained finality and also in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Court, the question raised in this writ petition has become academic. In the light of the contention of the petitioner that the lands lying on the four sides of the property in question are excluded from acquisition and the petitioner is entitled to be treated alike, the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation before respondent Nos.2 and 3, within a month from today setting out particulars of the lands left out of acquisition and the concerned respondents shall consider the said representation of the petitioner within three months after filing the representation, in accordance with law and as directed by the Division Bench in the case of Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs. Sri. R. Shankaran and another (supra). It is needless to mention here that while considering the representation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the status of the land as on the date of Preliminary Notification and shall not take into account any developments made after Preliminary Notification.

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:28881 WP No. 8285 of 2026

¶51