JAYALAKSHMAMMA v. SAROJA P & Ors.

1. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2. SAROJA P W/O RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3. CHAYADEVI D/O RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

4. SUMANGALA A W/O BALRAJ P AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

5. RAVITEJA S/O BALRAJ P AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SUMANGALA A W/O BALRAJ P AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE - 560 062.

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. PRAKASH V, S/O SHRI VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.53, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, THIGALARAPALYA COLONY, WATER TANK ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S, ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPT., VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJIT ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) …RESPONDENTS THE BDA ACT, 1976 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE ANY WRIT OR DECLARATION THAT NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SEC 17 NO. OF BDA/SLOA/A4/PR/257/88-89 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SEC 19 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 BEARING NO. HUD/LMS/553 DTD 22.07.1991 GAZETTED ON 27.07.1991 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS THE SCHEME IS LAPSED UNDER SEC 27 OF THE BDA ACT AND THE BDA HAS FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ABANDONED BY THE BDA AND ETC., BEARING 17.11.1988 DTD IN WP NO. 13937/2024 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI N D/O LATE NARAYANA @ NARAYANAPPA W/O ANAND K AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.G-12/A, 2ND MAIN, MICO LAYOUT, PIEPLINE, J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 086.

2. SMT. JAYASHREE D/O LATE NARAYANA @ NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.32, 10TH CROSS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR 5TH D MAIN, NAGAPURA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 086 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHRI PRAKASH V, S/O SHRI VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.53, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, THIGALARAPALYA COLONY, WATER TANK ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 058. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPT., VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJIT ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) ...RESPONDENTS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR DATED THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE ANY WRIT OR DECLARATION THAT NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 BEARING NO. BDA/SLOA/PR/257/88-89 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 BEARING NO.HUD/LMS/553 DATED 22.7.1991 GAZETTED ON 27.7.1991 VIDE ANNESURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS THE SCHEME IS LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BDA ACT AND THE BDA HAS FILED TO IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ABANDONED BY THE BDA.

17.11.1988 IN WP NO. 13959/2024 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. PREMILA W/O LATE NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

2. MURALIDHARA S/O LATE NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

3. BHAVYA D/O LATE NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

USHA D/O LATE NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

PRAJWAL S/O LATE NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR

MALA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

ARUN S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

DIVYA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE VARALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

GOWRAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

YELLAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

SHIVAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

MANJULA W/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

CHANDU S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR

SUSHMA D/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

KAVYA D/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

SHALINI D/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

BRUNDA D/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, PETITIONER 17 AND 18 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT ALAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 078. REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHRI PRAKASH V, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO 53, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, THIGALARAPALYA COLONY, WATER TANK ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH, HC-KAR BENGALURU - 560 058 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DEPT., VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUHTORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AJIT ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO ISSUED ANY WRIT OR ISSUED UNDER DECLARATION THAT NOTIFICATION SECTION 17 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 BEARING NO. BDA/SLOA/A4/PR/257/88-89 DATED 17.11.1988 VIDE ISSUED UNDER ANNEXURE SECTION 19 OF THE BDA ACT, 1976 BEARING NO. HUD/LMS/553 DATED 22.07.1991 GAZETTED ON 27.7.1991 VIDE ANNEXURE -B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS -A AND NOTIFICATION - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS THE SCHEME IS LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE BDA ACT AND THE BDA HAS FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME AND THE SAME HAS BEE ABANDONED BY THE BDA AND ETC., . THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER All these writ petitions are taken up together since common questions of law and fact are involved.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. The land bearing Sy.No.8 (new No.8/1) in total measuring 1 acre 25 guntas situated at Alahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bangalore, belonged to the petitioners' great grandfather namely late Muniyappa @ Yatgalappa @ Hottappa. The two children of the late Muniyappa namely Doddannaiah and Munimalli, acquired the same under a partition effected in O.S - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR No.89/1965. The said land was notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 Gazetted on 19.11.1989 and a final notification under Section 19 of the BDA Act, 1976 on 22.07.1991 Gazetted on 27.07.1991, which included petitioners' schedule properties. One Doddannaiah and Pillappa, claiming to be the members of family, filed Writ Petition No.3146/1994 pertaining to survey No.8/1 questioning the award, the said writ petition came to be dismissed.

4. It further appears that certain land owners challenged the preliminary notification and notification dated 17.11.1988 and 19.11.1989 before this Court in the case of Shaikh Basheer and others -vs- State represented by its Commissioners and others1 (Shaikh Basheer), wherein this Court observed as follows: "5. In all these cases, the total extent of land involved is 102 acres and 84 guntas as submitted by the learned counsel for the BDA. Out of which the BDA has 1 W.P. No.4046/1993 & connected matters D.D. 27.09.1996 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR taken possession only in respect of 52 acres when the petition is pending before this Court. If that is the case, there is no need for the BDA to form any layout in these 52 acres. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following order:- The final notification issued under Section 19(1) of the Act on 22.07.1991 insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioners is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the BDA to proceed with the acquisition in accordance with law and such acquisition shall be completed within one year from today. If the petitioners have not filed any objections, they are permitted to do so within a year period of one month from today, without awaiting any notice from the BDA. The petitioners are also directed not to put up any construction for a period of one year from today".

5. The order passed by the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal and has attained finality. Pursuant thereto, the BDA issued a fresh final notification under Section 19 of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR the BDA Act, including the petitioners land which was Gazetted on 18.09.1997.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject lands were part of the scheme known as 'Jayaprakash Narayan Nagar, 9th stage' (J.P.Nagar 9th stage) for which preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 and the final notification dated 22.07.1991 were issued. It is contended that in the case of Sri V. Venkatesh and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others2 (V. Venkatesh), this Court declared that the scheme of the BDA relating to "J.P.Nagar 9th Stage" had lapsed and accordingly quashed the acquisition proceedings in relation to the lands involved in that case.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the writ appeals preferred by the BDA in Writ Appeal Nos.187-188/2017 and Writ Appeal Nos.698-701/2018 against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division 2 W.P. No.1377 & 1382/2016 D.D. 21.04.2016 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR Bench by order dated 10.04.2019, holding that the scheme was never implemented. The SLP preferred by the BDA in SLP No.19776/2019 and connected appeals arising out of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench was dismissed by the Apex Court on 12.10.2022. Hence, it is contended that in light of the judgment of this Court in V.Venkatesh (supra) having been affirmed by the Apex Court, applies directly to the petitioner's lands, which form part of the "J.P.Nagar 9th phase", and therefore, impugned acquisition proceedings deserves to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the BDA contends that the writ petitions are devoid of merits. It is submitted that the BDA has substantially implemented the scheme and third party rights have been created over the acquired lands. It is further submitted that petitioner's earlier challenge in WP No.4046/1993 and connected matters, was limited to the determination of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer and that the present challenge to the acquisition notifications is misconceived. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:41700 WP No. 18215 of 2024 C/W WP No. 13937 of 2024 WP No. 13959 of 2024 HC-KAR

9. It is argued that since the petitioners did not challenge the acquisition proceedings earlier and only questioned valuation they cannot seek to quash the notification after several years.

10. Upon careful consideration of the records, this Court finds that in the case of V. Venkatesh, it has been categorically held that the scheme relating to J.P. Nagar 9th Stage, had lapsed and stood abandoned, and consequently, the acquisition proceedings were quashed. The Court observed that as the possession has not been taken and the lands were built up and unutilized, the scheme could not be implemented. The said findings have been affirmed upto the Apex Court.