The Bangalore Developement Authority vs K Srinivas Murthy

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.240/2023 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:

1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2. SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND

Digitally signed        ACQUISITION OFFICER
by RUPA V               BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Location: High          T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
Court of                KUMARA PARK WEST
karnataka               BENGALURU - 560020.
                   3.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADV.,) AND: K. SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED 49 YEARS NO.42, 7TH CROSS CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR M.N. ADV.,) -2- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 R/W RULE 27 OF HIGH COURT WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES 1977, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL

FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER

PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.38467/2016 (LA-BDA) DATED 09.01.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF WP No.38467/2016(LA-BDA) & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38467/2016.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are

that the father of the respondent was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.35/4 of Halasuru Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board for formation of HAL IV Stage layout and was later, de-notified from the acquisition. The Authority, after de-notification, while forming the layout, utilized 11 guntas of the land of the father

-3- of the respondent for formation of 2 roads and 3 sites. The father of the respondent filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the appellant. The writ petition came to be disposed of on the statement of the appellant that the auction sites are not in the subject survey

number. The father of the respondent approached the appellant, sought for conducting the survey and based on such survey, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 were filed wherein a direction was issued to the appellant to consider the representation of the respondent for allotment of an alternate site. The appellant considered the representation and allotted 3½ guntas of developed land to the respondent which was equivalent to 7 guntas of the land claimed to be utilized by the

appellant. The respondent sought allotment of developed alternate site to the extent of 50% of 11 guntas which came to be rejected by the appellant under the endorsement dated 01.06.2016 which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by issuing mandamus to the appellant to allot additional developed land equivalent to 2 guntas of land in any layout formed subsequent to HAL IV Stage, further directed to pay the cost of -4- Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent, recover the same from the erring officials and directed the Commissioner, BDA to initiate such action as may be necessary against such persons after following due process. Being aggrieved, the appellant-BDA is in appeal.

3. Sri.Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel appearing for

the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in issuing a direction to the appellant-BDA to allot 2 guntas of the developed land despite specific stand of the appellant based on the affidavit that the appellant-BDA has not utilized 4 guntas of the land claimed by the father of the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the respondent to the Civil Court to

establish his right over 4 guntas of the land. It is further submitted that the official of the appellant conducted survey placing reliance on the documents available with them and came to a definite conclusion that the appellant has utilized only 7 guntas of the land and not 11 guntas as claimed by the respondent and insofar as the utilized land, already alternate developed land has been allotted to the respondent. It is also

-5-

submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding with regard to the fraud in paragraphs 8 to 10 which was uncalled for as the Authorities have not played any fraud for utilization of the land and already alternate developed land has been allotted and further direction to pay cost and to initiate departmental enquiry against the erring officials was also uncalled for as there is no lapse on the part of the officials. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Pawan Kumar M.N., learned counsel

for the respondent supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, taking note of the affidavit dated 22.07.2022 of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer has recorded a finding that the appellant- BDA played fraud on this Court by contending that it has not utilized 4 guntas of the land and that the onus to protect the said 4 guntas of the land is on the petitioner-respondent. It is submitted that the said finding is based on the material placed before it and the same cannot be found fault with. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

-6-

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.

6. The undisputed facts are that the father of the

respondent was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.35/4 of Halasuru Village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board for formation of HAL IV Stage layout under preliminary notification dated 21.09.1967 and final notification dated 16.10.1972. However, the same

was de-notified under notification dated 09.10.1976. The records indicate that the BDA, after de-notification, while forming the layout utilized 11 guntas of the land of the respondent for formation of 2 roads and 3 sites. The father of the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.81100/1997 seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the

appellant. The writ petition came to be disposed of on the statement of the appellant that the auction sites are not in the subject survey number. The father of the respondent -7- approached the appellant with a representation and sought for

conducting the survey. The appellant itself conducted the survey based on the representation of the respondent and found that the 3 auctioned sites were infact formed in the land of the respondent bearing Sy.No.35/4. Based on such survey, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 were filed wherein a direction was issued to the appellant to consider the representation of the respondent for allotment of an alternate site. The appellant considered the representation and allotted 3½ guntas of developed land to the respondent which was equivalent to 7 guntas of the land claimed to be utilized by the

appellant. The respondent sought allotment of developed alternate site to the extent of 11 guntas which came to be rejected by the appellant under the endorsement dated 01.06.2016 which was challenged in the writ petition before the

learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by issuing mandamus to the appellant to allot developed land equivalent to 2 guntas in any layout formed subsequent to HAL IV Stage, further directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and recover the same from the erring officials and directed the Commissioner, BDA to

-8-

initiate such action as may be necessary against such persons after following due process. It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.13017-18/2011 disposed of on 20.03.2012 has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioners therein being the unfortunate victims of the BDA are entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 19.11.2009 passed by the BDA and consequently, that the petitioners are entitled to 50% of the developed land in lieu of the property lost by them. Admittedly, the petitioner-respondent's property to an extent of 11 guntas was taken possession by the BDA without acquisition proceedings and directed the BDA to consider the representations and allot the land. The aforesaid finding and the order of the learned Single Judge attained

finality. The appellant-BDA filed an affidavit of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer on 22.07.2022 which indicates that they have utilized only 7 guntas of the land of the respondent without acquisition and remaining 4 guntas has been encroached by some third parties and the BDA is not responsible for the same. The said submission by way of affidavit is merely an attempt to overcome the finding recorded by this Court in its order dated 20.03.2012 in W.P.Nos.13017- -9-

affidavit, earlier directions and survey report has recorded a clear finding that the appellant-BDA being the statutory authority is required to act in terms of the applicable statute and it cannot make use of the land of the respondent without acquisition proceedings. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the material available on record and we do not find any error in the said finding calling for interference in this intra Court appeal.

7. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the

sanctioned plan and other documents available on record and came to a definite conclusion that when the statutory authority itself has forcefully, unauthorisedly and without sanction of law encroached upon and formed a road on the private property, it cannot be expected of a citizen like the respondent to protect the same and the contention of the BDA that the onus of protecting the same would lie on the respondent has no merit. Further, a finding is recorded that as per the circular dated 19.11.2009, the appellant is liable to allot 2 guntas of developed land to the respondent in lieu of utilization of 4

- 10 - guntas. The further direction of the learned Single Judge imposing cost and direction to initiate action against the erring officials is based on the conduct and the stand of the appellant- BDA before the writ Court. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and further direction with regard to the cost and initiation of the proceedings against the erring officials calling for interference in this appeal.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34