MR. A.P. RANGANATHA v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DECLARING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 12.12.2005 NO.BDA/COMMR/DC(LA)/SALAO/115/2005-06/ BEARING BANGALORE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER’S LAND MEASURING 3 ACRES 08 GUNTAS IN SY.116/3, SITUATED AT AGARA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AS ABANDONED, LAPSED, NON-EST AND NULL AND VOID AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 12.12.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order declaring the Preliminary Notification

12.12.2005 bearing No.BDA/Commr/DC(LA)/SALAO/115/2005-06/ Bangalore issued by the Second Respondent vide Annexure-A in respect of the Petitioner's land measuring 3 Acres 08 guntas in Sy.116/3, situated at Agara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk as abandoned, lapsed, non-est and null and void and consequently quash the Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2005 vide Annexure-A. In so far as petitioner concerned. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the notice dated

04.01.2025 bearing No.Sp.LAO-1(BBC-1)P.R.R Part- 2/12/2024-2025 vide ANNEXURE-M issued by the Respondent No.3 as the issuance of said notice is without authority of law. iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to withdraw Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2005 bearing No. BDA/Commr/DC(LA)/SALAO/115/2005-06/ Bangalore issued by the Second Respondent vide Annexure-A in view of the Resolution of the Respondent-BDA

24.10.2011 ANNEXURE-H. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. v) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

#2. The petitioner seeks to quash the preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure-A) pertaining to land measuring 03 acres 08 guntas in Sy. No.116/3 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR Agara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South and all the proceedings thereto.

#3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the records.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Ms. Gita Reddy Vs. The State of Karnataka and others1 (Gita Reddy), contending that the present matter is squarely covered by the said decision. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order in Gita Reddy was affirmed in W.A.No.215/2022 disposed of on

19.10.2022, and further upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.12708/2023 by order dated 04.05.2023. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri M. Krishnappa and another Vs. The 1 W.P. No.7848/2021 D.D. 17.04.2021 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA and others2 (M. Krishnappa) and in the case of Sri M. Krishnappa and another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA and others3 (M.Krishnappa) which has also attained finality, no appeal having been preferred.

#5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that a similar order was passed in the case of Gita Reddy and was confirmed upto the Apex Court.

#6. This Court in Gita Reddy’s case passed the following order: “5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the resolution of the Bengaluru Development Authority dated 24.10.2011 deciding and resolving to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in excess of 321 acres 10 guntas in which, the schedule properties are not situated coupled with the undisputed fact that the respondents have not taken any steps to complete the acquisition proceedings by issuing the Final notification or 2 W.P. No.8008/2018 D.D. 06.09.2021 3 W.P. No.6347/2018 D.D. 06.09.2021 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR passing an award or taking possession so far even after lapse of more than 15 years, am of the considered opinion that the impugned Preliminary Notification deserves to be quashed.

#6. In the result, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER a) The petition is allowed. b) The impugned Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure-A) and all the acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto in respect of the schedule properties of the petitioner are hereby quashed.”

#7. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically contended that, a resolution has been passed by the Authority-BDA, deciding to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of an extent of 321 acres 10 guntas, which also includes the petitioner’s schedule property, thereby conferring a clear benefit upon the petitioner. No final notification has been issued, no award has been passed, and possession of the schedule property - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR had not been taken. The resolution thus effectively terminated the acquisition process in respect of the lands covered thereunder. In light of the said resolution and the decision in Gita Reddy’s case, as affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.215/2022 and by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.12708/2023, the present case stands on identical footing and the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.

#8. On perusal of Annexure-H, the resolution dated

24.10.2011 clearly shows that the authority-BDA has resolved to drop the acquisition proceedings including petitioner’s schedule property, and as rightly contended by the petitioner, neither a final notification has been issued nor any award has been passed. Once the authority has itself resolved to withdraw from acquisition and no further steps have been taken in terms of issuance of final notification, passing of award, or taking possession, the acquisition proceedings cannot subsist in law. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40668 WP No. 27281 of 2025 HC-KAR preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. ii. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned preliminary notification dated

12.12.2005 (Annexure-A) acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, in respect of schedule property of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37