Writ Petition No. 11724 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 11724 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI B.S.JAYACHANDRA S/O B.H.SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O NO. 43, 2ND CROSS ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAGHUVANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 062. (BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.
Legal Reasoning
19. It may be pertinent to state here that in the above case (W.A. No.391 of 2019), the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: It “30. …… fact Banashankari 5th Stage layout is executed. ……” is an undisputed that It is, therefore, clear that before the Division Bench, it was undisputed that Banashankari V Stage layout had been formed. the Division Bench after 20. Moreover, in the other case decided by the factually Division Bench, assessing the exact extent of lands acquired and the lands used for the formation of the Layout, has recorded the aforementioned findings and therefore, it would be appropriate to follow the said findings, rather than follow the decision which was on the basis of an undisputed statement of facts. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR 21. In my view, having regard to the fact that the decision of the Division Bench rendered in Writ Appeal No.435 of 2017 was confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.19776 of 2019 connected with SLP No.13474 of 2020, this Court would be obliged to follow the order passed by the Division Bench, whose order has been confirmed by the Apex Court. 22. In view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has categorically recorded a finding after a factual assessment of the lands notified and the extent of lands used for the formation of the Layout. that Banashankari V Stage Scheme was not substantially implemented and therefore, under the mandate of Section 27 of the BDA Act, the Scheme had lapsed, this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands would stand quashed, since the Scheme itself has been declared to have been lapsed.
Arguments
(BY SMT.RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI H.T.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION PASSED UNDER SEC. 17(1) OF BEARING NO. ACT, BDA/SLAO/A1/324/88-89 DTD 29.12.1988 AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY R-2 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED AND ETC., 1976, BDA THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: “i) Issue writ in the nature certiorari, to quash the impugned Preliminary Notification passed under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, 1976, bearing No. BDA/SLAO/A1/324/88-89, dated: 29.12.1988 at ANNEXURE-B passed by 2nd Respondent in so far as it pertains to the Petition Schedule Property is concerned. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR ii) Issue writ in the nature certiorari, to quash the impugned Final Notification passed under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, 1976, bearing No. HUD-127- MNX-94, dated: 09.05.1994 at ANNEXURE-C passed by 1st Respondent in so far as it pertains to the Petition Schedule Property is concerned. iii) Consequently, set aside the Award passed U/s 11 of the LA Act, bearing No. SLAO:A1:LAC:226/94-95, dated 24.07.1995 at ANNEXURE-E passed by the 3rd Respondent. iv) In the alternative issue a writ or direction declaring that the Preliminary Notification dated: 29.12.1988, bearing No. BDA/SLAO/A1/324/88-89 and the Final Notification dated: 09.05.1994, bearing No. HUD-127- MNX-94, issued by the 2nd and 1st Respondent herein at ANNEXURE-B & C to the Writ Petition has lapsed itself has been the acquisition and also abandoned in so far as it pertains to the Petition Schedule Property is concerned. that v) Pass such other writ, direction or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri H Shanthi Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner; Smt Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri H T Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel Sri H Shanthi Bhushan representing the petitioner would contend that the coordinate bench - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR concerning the same acquisition of the adjacent land has allowed the petition and quashed the notification of acquisition on the score that the scheme has lapsed in terms of the mandate of section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short). 4. The coordinate bench in W.P.No.8944 of 2016 by its order dated 23-04-2024 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 14. In the light of the above arguments, the only question that is to be considered is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to seek for the relief that the Scheme of Banashankari V Stage had lapsed. 15. A Division Bench of this Court while considering an appeal in Writ Appeal No.435 of 2017 filed by the BDA challenging an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which he had held that the Scheme in respect of Banashankari V Stage had lapsed, has stated as follows: “15. The respondent No.2 its additional statement of objections has placed on record the details of formation of Banashankari V stage and the status of the land as on that date. The same is extracted below: land notified for in Sl. No. Details Acres- Guntas 1 Built-up area 279-06 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR 2 3 4 5 6 Deleted subsequent to the orders in Writ Petitions (Hon`ble High Court) 58-03 De-notified land 205-18 Layout formed by BDA 116-27 Government land 255-04 Land under litigation 544-03 Total notified land 1458-21 16. Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 mandates the following: “27. Authority to execute the scheme within five years.-Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions become inoperative.” of Section shall 36 17. In view of the statement made on oath by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Court by their additional statement of objections, it is clear that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not substantially implemented the Scheme as mandated. The respondent No.2 has claimed that 544.03 Acres of land was under litigation and that it had formed a layout only in respect of 116.27 Acres while more than 263 Acres was denotified from acquisition. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not disclosed the status of the litigation that afflicted 544.03 Acres of land and as to whether those lands were available for development of the Scheme or not. It is therefore evident that the respondent No.2 and 3 have failed to substantially implement the Scheme and thus, have failed to comply with the mandate of Section 27 of the BDA Act.“ 16. In view of the above findings recorded by the Division Bench, it is clear that the Scheme formulated by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR the BDA for the formation of Banashankari V Stage Layout has already been held to be lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the BDA Act. This finding recorded by the Division Bench binds this Court and this Court cannot go beyond the findings recorded by the Division Bench. 17. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that, as a matter of fact, the order passed by the Division Bench has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.19776 of 2019 connected with No.13474 of 2020 and other cases, on 12.10.2022 and in view of the affirmation of the order of the Division Bench by the Supreme Court, it cannot be argued that the Scheme was still subsisting or that the Scheme had been substantially executed. 18. The BDA, on the other hand, submitted that another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.391 of that 2019, disposed of on 03.06.2021 had held Banashankari V Stage Scheme was executed and there was a full fledged residential layout and this Court would have to follow the said dicta, rather than the ruling rendered in the aforementioned writ appeal.
Decision
23. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned notifications are quashed. The consequential awards, if any, shall also stand quashed. 24. As a consequence, the extent of land already conveyed by the BDA shall remain undisturbed, in view of the concession given by the petitioners that they do not intend to challenge the said allotment or sale. 25. An application has been filed for impleading by the persons who claim that they have purchased a portion of the property from the purchasers of the petitioners. 26. If that is so, it will be open for the applicants therein to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for any grievance that they may have. The application for impleading is accordingly disposed of.” 5. The learned counsel for the respondents though would put up vehement opposition on the ground that award has already been passed, he is not in a position to dispute the fact - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19711 WP No. 11724 of 2024 HC-KAR that the notification was of the year 1994 and nothing has happened in the subject land. Therefore, as the scheme has stood lapsed and does not meet rigors of Section 27 of the BDA Act as is held by the coordinate bench and also in the light of the issue standing answered qua the same acquisition, I deem it appropriate to follow suit and grant the same relief to the present petitioner as well. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notifications stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73