SRI. K. T. GIRIYANNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

#1. SRI. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) RESIDING AT NO. 797, 10TH MAIN, 35TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 1(a) SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI W/O. B M VENU GOPAL, D/O. LATE K T GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.116, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, PRAYAG MONTESSORI, PADMANABHA NAGAR, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR BENGALURU – 560 070. 1(b) MR. K G NAGARAJ S/O LATE MR. K.T.GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.218, 23RD MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS, NANDINI HOTEL J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. 1(c) SMT. SRIDEVI G W/O RAGHAVA, D/O LATE MR. K.T.GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRI. KRUTHIKA, VIDYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BEHIND MG PARK, HASSAN – 573 202. 1(d) MR. MURALI.G S/O LATE MR. K T GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIRIYANNA KT 154 CLASSIC ORCHARDS, PHASE - 2, KOTHANURU, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH, MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, BENGALURU. (AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 18/12/2024) (BY SRI. SHRIKARA P K, ADVOCATE FOR LR’S OF DECEASED APPELLANT I.E. A1(a-d)) …APPELLANTS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR AND:

#1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HAVING OFFICE AT: T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

#3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

#4. SMT. H. V. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE SAKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 421, 60TH CROSS, HEALTH LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, SRIGANDADHAKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 091.

#5. SMT. NANDINI @ NANDINI BHARANAIAH D/O. LATE BHARANAIAH AND LATE SHANTHAMMA BHARANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 79, - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR ”VENKATESHA NILAYA”, SERPENTINE ROAD, NEAR KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, K.P. WEST, BENGALURU NORTH, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.

#6. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, NH-4, KODANDARAMPURA, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU - 560 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. A CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF HON’BLE COURT IN WP No. 55091/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC., - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR IN WA NO. 1297/2024 BETWEEN:

#1. SRI M SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE MR MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.797 10TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011. (BY SRI. HARISH B NARASAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H N NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND:

#2. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HAVING OFFICE AT: T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR

#6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. SMT. H V JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SAKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.421 60TH CROSS, HEALTH LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, SRIGANDADHAKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 091. SMT. NANDINI @ NANDINI BHARANAIAH D/O LATE BHAANAIAH AND LATE SHANTHAMMA BHARANAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.79 “VENKATESHA NILAYA” SERPENTINE ROAD NEAR KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE K.P. WEST BENGALURU NORTH SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU SOUTH, SUB DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION CHOWDAIAH ROAD NH-4 KODANDARAMPURA - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR MALLESHWARAM WEST BENGALURU – 560 012.

#7. K T GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) FATHER’S NAME THIMIAH NO.797 10TH MAIN 35TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs 7(a) SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI D/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT 116 2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN PRAYAG MONTESSORI PADMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 070. 7(b) SRI. K.G. NAGARAJ S/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT 218 23RD MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS NANDINI HOTEL J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR 7(c) SMT. SRIDEVI G D/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI. KRUTHIKA VIDYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BEHIND MG PARK HASSAN - 573 202. 7(d) SRI. MURALI G D/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI KRUTHIKA VIDYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BEHIND MG PARK HASSAN - 573 202. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R6; SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No. 55091/2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) In Writ Appeal No.365/2024 This appeal has been filed by the appellant / petitioner (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs), impugning the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.55091/2018.

#2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience.

#3. The BDA had published a preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’), proposing to acquire an extent of 1532 acres 17 guntas of land, including the land in the alleged ownership of the petitioners, measuring 10 acres 7 guntas in Survey Nos.70 and 71 of Turahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The purpose for acquiring the land was for the formation of further extension of Banashankari VI Stage. The State Government, however, had issued the final notification dated 09.09.2003 - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, acquiring an extent of 750 acres of land, which would include the lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 as mentioned above.

#4. The said final notification came to be challenged in a number of writ petitions before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.44949/2003, and connected cases. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.53576/2003.

#5. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated

06.06.2006 in Writ Petition No.44949/2003 and connected cases, upheld the final notification and rejected the challenge to the acquisitions in all the writ petitions. However, the acquisition was upheld subject to the following conditions:- “The challenge to the acquisition in all these writ petitions falls and it is accordingly rejected. The acquisition proceedings are upheld, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioners who are all the owners of sites in question (not duly converted for non-agricultural use in accordance with law) which are acquired are entitled to the following reliefs: (i) These petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment of sites under the Bangalore - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are not entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. (ii) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same (iii) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30' x 40' in "Further Extension of Banashankari 6th Phase" or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore. (iv) If there are no rival claimants compensation in regard to the plots claimed by the petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR regard in their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment (to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation, which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay). (v) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners' title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section-30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the Reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site. (vi) If any of the petitioners does not fullfill the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20' x 30' sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites. - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR (vii) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders). (viii) The Authorities shall also consider whether these petitioners have purchased the sites by way of investment or with the intention of having a roof over their head and based on the said consideration, to pass appropriate orders, in the light of the observations made in this order. B-(i) All the petitioners who are owners/converted site owners (duly converted for non-agricultural use of land, in accordance with law), who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non-agricultural use; (d) garden and recognised nursery lands; (e) who have bulit hospitals, educational institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR contentions within three months from the date of this order. (ii) It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the landowners whose objections were upheld and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued (iii) In the event the Authority comes to the conclusion that those persons are similarly placed and are covered by the Resolution of the BDA dated

28.06.2003 in Subject No.177/2003, then to de- notify their lands/sites, built up portion and exclude them from acquisition (iv) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter, the authority shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. (C) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Authority on the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for de-notifying or exemption sought for are considered, possession shall not be disturbed and the existing - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the application in the light of the aforesaid direction, the Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition. (D) The suggestion made by this Court paragraph-25 during the course of this order may be considered in all earnestness, particularly, in the cases of those who have already put up construction and living therein prior to preliminary notification. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.” Thus, the petitioners / land owners were given option to file representations for release of their lands from the land acquisition proceedings if they believe that their lands fell within the exceptions as carved out by the High Court in the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

#6. The petitioners had filed representations before the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) de-notifying their lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 to an extent of 10 acres and 7 guntas. The BDA had considered their representations and passed a resolution dated 25.06.2007, in respect of the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71. The BDA had observed as under:- - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR Sl. No. Name of village Survey Number Total Extent Acres- Guntas Notified Extent Acres- Guntas Brief Details 9 Turahalli 70 4-13 4-13 71 5-34 5-34 The authority constructed 3 roads on land. Stone slabs have been laid and BDA name board has been erected. The Government letter dated 26/12/2006 has stated that this land belongs to Forest department and it should be therefore dropped notification. could be handed over to the Forest department after verification. This

#7. Thus, the BDA in its resolution was of the opinion that as the State Government had stated that the said land in Survey Nos.70 and 71 belonged to Forest Department, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the forest land to be dropped from the notification and the lands could be handed the Forest Department after verification. This observation in no way supports the petitioners in any manner.

#8. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the second writ petition being Writ Petition No.55091/2018 before this Court - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR again challenging the preliminary and final notifications on the ground that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

#9. The petitioner took the contention that as the BDA had passed the resolution to de-notify the land and in pursuance of the said resolution, the committee constituted namely, The De-notification Committee, Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Government, passed a resolution, in its meeting held on

17.12.2008 in respect of the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71. It was observed that the BDA vide resolution dated 25.06.2007 vide Agenda No.118/07 had decided to drop lands in 21 survey numbers from the acquisition and the said resolution of the BDA was submitted to the Government on 09.04.2008, almost after a year. Thereafter, the Committee had recommended to drop the lands in said 21 survey numbers, including the survey Nos.70 and 71, from acquisition. This Resolution of the De-notification Committee would not support the petitioner's contention inasmuch as it is in pursuance of the resolution dated 25.06.2007 passed by the BDA, wherein it was observed that the Government had stated that the said land was of the Forest Department and therefore, the BDA in its resolution had - 18 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR said the acquisition proceeding should be dropped and the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71 could be handed over to the Forest Department.

#10. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition after considering the satellite image etc., and held that the petitioner had challenged the orders passed by the authorities holding the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71 as forest lands. The Writ Petition No.54268/2017 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2019 and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the petitioner's case.

#11. After the Court order dated 27.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.54268/2017, another survey was conducted on

22.07.2021, with the petitioner, the Appellate Authority and other officials of the Forest Department were also present in the survey. The question whether the subject property is a part of the forest or not is to be decided by the Conservator of Forests and subject to such conclusion, the State Government would have to take its decision on the BDA’s resolution dated - 19 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR

25.06.2007 to exclude the subject property from the acquisition proceeding.

#12. The learned Single Judge, in view of the aforesaid fact that the question whether the lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 are forest lands or not for which the proceedings are pending, has held that the Court cannot declare that the Scheme for acquisition shall not be held.

#13. During the hearing on 16.12.2005, the petitioners made a submission that lands were not acquired and the BDA had taken a decision to de-notify the lands by its resolution dated 25.06.2007 and the De-notification Committee by its resolution dated 07.12.2008 had affirmed the BDA resolution therefore, the Government must recommendation. We, therefore, on 16.12.2025, passed the following order:- “We direct the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka to file an affidavit on the decision taken by the State Government on the Board Resolutions dated 25th June 2007 and 17th December 2008 regarding de-notifying - 20 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR the petitioners’ lands from the land acquisition proceedings in question. Post these writ appeals on 21st January 2026.”

#14. In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 – State has filed the affidavit stating that the total lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 is 10 acres 7 guntas and out of 10 acres 7 guntas, 7 acres of land is the minor forest. In respect of the 3 acres 7 guntas of land, the BDA has formed the sites and allotted to the allottees.

#15. Considering the aforesaid facts stated on the affidavit, we are not giving our finding whether the demarcation of 7 acres land as a forest land is correct or incorrect. But, considering the fact that the land acquisition proceedings were got over after the final notification, for which the award was passed and compensation was deposited, there is no ground to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

#16. We make it clear, we agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed. - 21 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR In Writ Appeal No.1297/2024

#17. This appeal has been filed appellant, impugning the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.55091/2018.

#18. The appellant was not a party before the learned Single Judge. His application for impleadment in Writ Appeal No.365/2024 came to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court.

#19. However, we have heard Mr. Harish B. Narasappa, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.N. Narendra Dev, learned counsel for the appellant, as intervener, as the appellant had purportedly entered into an agreement with the alleged owners, in respect of the said land. Their submissions have also been considered by us.

#20. In view thereof, we affirm the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has been right in saying that merely on the ground that the dispute in respect of the land, whether it is a forest land or not, is pending, the land acquisition proceeding cannot be said to have - 22 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024 HC-KAR been lapsed, particularly, when the final notification was upheld by the learned Single Judge in judgment and the said judgment has attained finality. Ordered accordingly.

#21. However, we make it clear that any observation made by us will not come in the way of the appellant establishing his right over the land in question. Pending applications, if any, do not survive consideration and they are disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9