(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4318 of 2006)

Bondu Ramaswamy                                ……. Appellant


Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.         ……. Respondents



Leave granted. These appeals relate to the challenge of acquisition of lands for formation of Arkavathi layout on the outskirts of Bangalore by the Bangalore Development Authority [for short `BDA’] under the  Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (`BDA Act’ or `Act’ forshort).

2.    On 2.1.2001 the Executive Engineer (North) of BDA submitted a scheme report with detailed estimates for formation of a proposed new layout in an area of 1650 acres spread over twelve villages, to be called as `Hennur Devanahalli Layout’. On 7.10.2002 after an initial survey, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of BDA submitted a report proposing that 3000 acres of land in the said twelve villages and two adjoining villages (Chellakere and Kempapura) and suggested that scheme may be called as `Arkavathi Town or layout’ instead of `Hennur Devanahalli layout’. The Commissioner agreed with the proposal on 8.10.2002 and placed the matter before the Authority (that is the members constituting the Bangalore Development Authority). The Authority in its meeting held on 10.12.2002 considered the proposal and decided to issue preliminary notification under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 17 of BDA Act proposing to acquire in all about 3000 acres of land in 14 villages. After the said resolution, lands in two more villages (Nagavara and Hebbala) were also included to provide better access to the layout. A preliminary notification dated 3.2.2003 under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 17 of BDA Act was issued proposing to acquire 3339 acres 12 guntas. Certain government lands, tanks, grazing lands, tank catchments area, stone quarry, burial grounds were shown in the Schedule to the notification dated 3.2.2003, but their extent was not included in the abstract of lands proposed to be acquired. The abstract apparently referred only to the private lands to be acquired. In the circumstances, a modified preliminary notification was issued in August 2003 published in the Gazette dated 16.9.2003 showing the total extent of land likely to be needed for the purpose of formation of Akravathi Layout as 3839 A, 12 G of land. The said extent of land was situated in the following 16 villages : (1) Dasarahalli (2) Byrathikhane (3) Chellakere (4) Geddalahalli (5) K. Narayanapura (6) Rachenahalli (7) Thanisandra (8) Amaruthahalli (9) Jakkur (10) Kempapura (11) Sampigehalli (12) Srirampura (13) Venkateshapura (14) Hennur (15) Hebbala and (16) Nagavara.

3.    Notices were issued to land owners under section 17(5) of the Act giving an opportunity to show cause why the acquisition should not be made. Public notice was also issued in the newspapers inviting objections. No objections were received in regard to 91 acres 7 Guntas  The objections received in regard to 2658 acres were considered and rejected. The Authority decided to seek the sanction of the government for the acquisition of 2750 acres of land, after deleting 1089 A 12 G acres of land from the proposed scheme. On 3.2.2004, the authority passed a resolution to obtain the approval of the state government forimplementation of the Arkavathi layout under Section 15(2) of BDA Act and requesting sanction for acquisition of 2750 acres for formation of 28600 sites of different dimensions. The scheme as modified at an estimated cost of Rs. 981.36 crores (in view of the reduction of the area to 2750 acres), along with the draft final notification and relevant records was forwarded by the BDA to the State Government, under cover of letter dated 13.2.2004. After securing certain clarification, by Government Order dated 21.2.2004, the State government accorded sanction for the scheme under Section 18(3) of the Act. In pursuance of it, the final declaration dated 23.2.2004 was issued by the State Government, under section 19(1) of the Act (published in the Karnataka Gazette on the same day) stating that sanction had been granted for the scheme and declaring that the lands specified in the Schedule thereto in all 2750 acres (a little more or less) were needed for the public purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. According to BDA, in pursuance of the same, it made several awards from 12.5.2004 onwards in regard to extent of 1618.38 acres took possession of 1459.37 acres of private land and 459.16 acres of government land in all 1919.13 acres, and formed the layout by laying14103 plots, apart from roads, drains etc.

65.      On behalf of BDA, an affidavit dated 14.3.2007 was filed before us wherein it is disclosed that in regard to a question put regarding deletion in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the following particulars were furnished on 25.1.2006:

(i)      Extent of land acquired                               :      2626 acres 13 guntas

(ii)     Extent dropped in the final                        :      1089 acres 12 guntas Notification

(iii)    Extent of government lands                      :      487 acres 11 guntas Included in formation of Arkavathi layout

In a statement furnished in this Court on 20.3.2006, BDA gave the break up as under:

(i)      Extent as per preliminary                           :             3839 acres 12 guntas Notification

(ii)     Extent deleted after preliminary             :             1089 acres 12 guntas Notification

(iii)    Extent of government lands                        : 459 acres acquired as per final notification

(iv)     Extent of private land acquired                : 2291 acres 2750 acres as per final notification

Another statement furnished to us shows 500 acres have been deleted under the heading “religious institutions”.

66.   The appellants contended that the deletion of as much as 1089 acres 12 guntas from out of 3839 acres 12 guntas proposed to be acquired under the preliminary notification would mean that more than 28% was deleted. Several deletions formed islands within the acquired areas. Some of the deletions in some villages were of such a magnitude that what remained of the acquisition in those villages were small and negligible islands completely surrounded by acquired/deleted lands making it difficult or impossible to effectively use such remaining land for development. Such an extensive deletion can lead to the following two inferences: (i) that there was total non application of mind when the proposal was made and without proper survey and by completely ignoring the ground realities about the constructed areas, suitability and availability for acquisition and other relevant circumstances, BDA in extreme haste had proposed acquisition; and/or (ii) the deletion of such vast areas showed that the deletions were arbitrarily made or to favour a chosen few.

71.   We give below the particulars of the area notified and deleted to get a true picture of the magnitude of deletions and the resultant discrimination:

S.No. Name of          the Extent notified    Total     extent   Extent      dropped

village              in           the   notified in the    from      acquisition

preliminary        final              while issuing final

notification dt.   declaration        declaration

3.2.2003           dated 23.2.2004    (in Acre.Gunta)

(in Acre.Gunta)

1.      Dasarahalli         380.04           225.18             154.22

2.      Byrathikhare        86.07            77.25                   8.22

3.      Chellakere            155.03           135.14              19.29

4.      Geddalahalli       195.13           133.05              62.08

6.      Rachenahalli       396.29           298.03              98.26

7.      Thanisandra        557.04           482.07               74.37

8.      Amruthahalli      196.11           139.01              56.10

9.      Jakkur                    422.28           360.24               62.04

10.     Kempapura            55.13            26.38                28.15

11.     Sampigehalli       401.39           256.20            145.21

12.     Sriramapura       196.35           94.13              102.22

13.     Venkateshpura     95.65            60.13               34.28

14.     Hennur                  262.22           140.21            122.01

15.     Hebbala                   59.01            59.14

16.     Nagavara              169.16           127.00             42.16

Total                               3839 A.12G.      2750 A.            1089 A. 12 G.

82.    We may illustrate the principle relating to positive and negative equality with reference to following notional acquisition cases:

(i)     Where a petitioner’s land and his neighbour’s land are of similar size and have similar structures and are similarly situated, and the policy of the Development Authority is to withdraw the acquisition in respect of lands which are `constructed’, if the neighbour’s land is deleted from the proposed acquisition on the ground that it has a construction of 1000 sq.ft. and the petitioner’s land is not so deleted, the petitioner will be entitled to relief on the ground of discrimination. But if the neighbour’s land measures 2000 sq.ft. and contains a house of 1000 sq.ft and the petitioner’s land measures one acre and contains a house measuring 1000 sq.ft., the petitioner cannot obviously contend that because his neighbour’s property was deleted from acquisition, being a land with a construction, his one acre land should also be deleted in entirety from the acquisition, as it had a 1000 sq.ft. construction. But it may be possible for him to contend that an extent equal to what was released to his neighbour, should be released.

(ii)    Where the lands owned by two neighbours are equal in size having similar structures, but one was constructed before the preliminary notification after obtaining a licence and the other was constructed after the preliminary notification unauthorisedly, the owner of the land with  the unauthorised structure cannot obviously claim parity with the owner of the land with the authorised structure, for seeking deletion from acquisition.

(iii)   Where the vacant lands of `A’ and `B’ – two neighbours are acquired. The Authority had a policy to delete properties with  constructions, as on the date of preliminary notification. Both put up  unauthorised structures clandestinely overnight, after the preliminary notification. The land of `B’ is deleted from acquisition on the ground that it has a construction. If `A’ approaches court and claims release of his land claiming parity with `B’, the claim will have to be rejected. But, where the Authority admits that B’s land was deleted even though the construction was subsequent to preliminary notification, the court may direct the Authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law for cancelling the deletion.

(iv)   If in a village all the lands are notified and subsequently all lands except two or three small pockets are deleted without any valid ground, the persons whose lands were acquired can also seek deletion, on the ground that all the surrounding lands have been deleted. Court cannot direct deletion merely because the surrounding lands were deleted, as those deletions were illegal and not based on any valid policy. But the petitioners can contend that the very purpose of acquisition had been rendered infructuous by deletion of the majority of lands from the proposed acquisition, and the project or the scheme has ceased to exist and cannot be executed only with reference to their lands. In such a case, relief can be granted not on the ground that there has been discrimination, but on the ground that the proposed development scheme became non- existent on account of most of the lands being deleted from acquisition.


91.   In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications:

(i)   In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and Srirampura, BDA is directed to re-consider the objections to the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for

acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition. BDA has to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed.

(ii)    In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suitable for forming self contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in different unconnected lands in other villages. Similar isolated pockets in other villages should also be dealt with in a similar manner.

(iii)   BDA shall give an option to each writ petitioner whose land has been acquired for Arkavathy layout:

(a)   to accept allotment of 15% (fifteen percent) of the land acquired from him, by way of developed plots, in lieu of compensation (any fractions in excess of 15% may be charged prevailing rates of allotment).


(b)   in cases where the extent of land acquired exceeds half an acre, to claim in addition to compensation (without prejudice to seek reference if he is not satisfied with the quantum), allotment of a plot measuring 30′ x 40′ for every half acre of land acquired at the prevailing allotment price.

(iv)   Any allotment made by BDA, either by forming layouts or by way of bulk allotments, will be subject to the above.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.


  1. step mother treatment was given to site owners of arkavati juridiction, the BDA which acquires the sites of poor without paying any kind of remuneration, in the name acquisition for the purpose of Public cause, but here it acquires land sells to other party with higher rates , plz see under article 19 & 21 indian consition it iz against to this . the government says it promots sc/st & obcs here it iz acquiring only sites belonging to them , we are all poor uneducateds & dosent know what to do .presently we are put up shelters & staying in our sites .

    1. Dear Mr.Saravana,
      Compensation is paid to all legitimate land owners. BDA has invoked the LA and you must demand compensation. If you do not demand, you will not get it.
      Please submit all the legitimate and proper documents and demand compensation and the Supreme Court of India has instructed the BDA to even allot 30X40 site for every half an acre of land acquired.
      Take care

  2. sir,

    We the employees of of AIR & DDK we purchase 2 acres of land converted to residential purpose, we obtained bank loan to buy the sites after obtaining NOC from BDA . but now our layout is also for acquition all registrations of sites were prior to priliminary notifications. sir still we are paying loans to bank but now we have handover our sites to BDA plz suggest in this regar.

  3. Sir,

    BDA has allotted me a site in Arkavathy layout and after paying the full amount for the site and after getting the certificate from the BDA, I am still waiting for registration. Please advise.

    1. Dear Mr.Suresh Kumar,
      The BDA is conducting resurvey as per the orders of the Supreme Court. The site allotted to you might be in the resurvey. Since, the subject matter was in SC, the BDA could not register it. As soon as the resurvey is completed and objections are called for, if found to be sustainable or grounds are strong, the BDA has to denotify the same. If it happens, then, you might be allotted an alternate site somewhere else. Otherwise, the registration would be completed. Either way, you need not worry. Site either in this layout or someother lay out of BDA is assured.


  4. Sir, I had purchased a site in Defense Colony (which is now in Arkavathy Layout) and had constructed house in the year 2003 and had obtained Electricity connection by paying deposits etc. Please tell me how fair is that, I have already paid huge amount to the Developer towards purchase of this site and spend amount for construction and other essential things. Now we are hearing that we wont be eligible for any amount that we have spent on it. Please advise us what we have to do in this regard..


    1. Dear Ms.Anitha,
      I might not be able to comment, though, you are at great loss, which might not be reparable, but you can certainly find out the status and take remedial action to safeguard your property, if possible. Do not loose heart. Check the status. If your property is notified, the Supreme Court of India, has issued clear direction to the BDA, to conduct proper resurvey. You may stand to gain, in case, if you have clear cut documents.
      Declaring that you have invested the money in property and got the power connection will not confer you any right, title and interest.
      There may be many property owners like you, who are affected, can meet and find a solution.
      You may forward the property details to us for enquiry.
      But, all our consultation and services are chargeable.

  5. Dear Sir,
    We have property in,Thanisandra which was purchased in 2004. This was notified land by BDA for Arkavathy Lay out. Please let us know if there is any way where the land can be prevented from being acquisitioned if we construct the house now. Please advise us in this regard.
    Mallika Srinath

    1. Dear Ms.Mallika Srinath,

      We have to examine the documents, notifications, resurvey and BDA records and proceedings, before advising you about the construction.

      ecopackindia team

      1. Dear Sir,

        I would like to consult with you regarding my property I have in Thanisandara.

        I would really appreciate if you can e-mail me your office address.

  6. Dear Sir,
    Talacauvery layout in Byatarayanapura has a very interesting situation.
    Land which was earmarked for parks have been sold as sites and they have decent road. Legal sites on 8th cross doesnt a access road to main road.
    Would be nice if you could bring it to the notice of all concerned. BBMP / BDA are all hand in glove in this nonsense.

    1. I agree with Kumar. Many Owners in the 1st main road has illegally occupied the road space and have extended their sites .Their sites are all now 40*65 or even more !!…Is BBMP /BDA not watching this?…

  7. Dear Sir,
    We have property in, Vishwanathanagenahalli which was purchased in and 1990 and 2003. This was notified land by BDA for Arkavathy Lay out. house constructed thereon Please advise us in this regard.

    1. Dear Mr.Chandrashekara,

      The BDA had invited objections and had opened special counters and even issued notices to all the parties concerned in this regard to file their objections. Please respond to it.
      ecopackindia team

  8. Hi,
    We have been living in a revenue site for the last 18 years and paying all the taxes. Today the BDA acquired a few vacant sites in the area. How do we ensure that tomorrow our only RCC built house is not demolished? Area in OMBR Layout. Please advice asap

    1. Dear Sir,
      If the final notification been effected on the schedule property, the BDA will acquire it. If the owner had submitted an objection and if it had been accepted by BDA, then, you stand a good chance of retaining the same. Please consult the best advocate. With this insufficient information, we cannot form any opinion.
      ecopackindia team

    1. Dear Mr.Prabhu Dev,

      Please provide complete details and documents.
      Please make a self assessment and approach us for consultation and be specific about your requirement and shall quote our fee.
      ecopackindia team

  9. Dear sir,

    I have purchased a D C converted site in Rachenahalli, survey No.90/3, and got it registered in 7th june 2003 raising a bank loan of Rs.3,30,333/-

    SubsequentlyI build a pucca RCC structur with plan sanctioned by Village punchayat with whom I was regularly(every year) paying the tax. This building considered for assessment as delux since vitrified tile etc are there.

    But this survey no.90/3 is notified by BDA but till now not acquired.
    After Supreme court judgement they (BDA) called and asked to submit the copy of the documents along with a letter stating that this is a pucca rcc
    structure with vitrified tile and all taxes are paid to the village punchayat and to BBMP after it was included to BBMP. Now I have beentold
    by some of the site owners that the BDA has issued NOC to 90/1, 90/2 which are acquire by BDA and converted by it as SITES. But ours being
    DC converted why BDA does not give us a clear reply. I am a retired and
    heart patients. It give me lot of stress, wil you guide me in this regard, wheather I am safe.

    Thanking you

    1. Dear Sir,
      The aforesaid property has been finally acquired by BDA on 21-02-2004(final notification) even though it had been converted. Availing the loan on such properties will result in this kind of trauma. As per the information available, the award has been granted to 4 acres and 39 guntas to one Mr.KG.
      Raising loan and building a house will not confer you any right, title and interest. The SC has directed you to file objections and it is up to BDA to allow or disallow or consider or reject your objections.
      The BDA and the Government has been delegated with powers to acquire lands, even if they are converted for residential use and there is no bar or restriction on such acquisition.
      Your age and failing health may not provide you the relief.
      NOC is a certificate valid up to the day, on which it is issued. It can acquire it, from the very next day. It means, that there was no proposal till the issue of such a NOC but, the very next day, the BDA might find it necessary and issue appropriate notification.
      The above are the legal views.
      But our sympathies are with you and your family and are helpless.

      But, Please meet the commissioner and make a request, and highlight your position, that might be of some help. If the BDA denotifies it at this juncture, every other landowner will demand that their property be denotified is another major issue, the BDA is facing.
      Take care and do not bother too much on this issue and take care of your health.
      Best Wishes,
      ecopackindia team

  10. Dear Sir,
    My Friend is trying to buy a site in Thanisandra, the seller has registered sale deed, BBMP tax paid and B khata. Is it safe to buy the plot?

    1. Dear Sir,
      Please conduct a thorough examination of documents and if possible, an independent enquiry.
      ecopackindia team

    1. Dear Ms.Shobha,

      How can we say that it is unsafe or safe without examining the documents and conducting investigation of documents. The documents might be very good with clear marketable titles, but without scrutinising it, if we pass an adverse remark, you loose the opportunity and if we pass a good remark, if the titles are defective, you land in trouble. Please consult a professional in this regard.
      ecopackindia team

  11. Is their any web site giving details of denotified sites or survey fields
    under Arkavathy Lay out?

  12. DEAR SIR,
    we want to puchase a site in survey no 90/2, amruthahalli village, yelahanka hobli. Today we found that it was notified by bda in 2003 vide reference no BDA/Commr/ALAO/ LA9/104/2002-03 . we want to know whether it is denotified later and is it safe to purchase the site.

  13. Is there a possibility of BDA acquiring fresh land for Arkavathy layout? I am in process of buying a land which was initially notified and then deleted . Is it safe to purchase this land?

    1. Dear Sir,

      Please check thoroughly with the concerned, before you take any decision.
      ecopackindia team

  14. DEAR SIR,
    we want to puchase a site in survey no 90/2, amruthahalli village, yelahanka hobli. Today we found that it was notified by bda in 2003 vide reference no BDA/Commr/ALAO/ LA9/104/2002-03 . we want to know whether it is denotified later and is it safe to purchase the site. Kindly let us also know if you need the documents to verify the same , If yes let us know when and how to reach you.

    1. Dear sir,
      We have to check it to know, whether it is denotified or not.
      Without examining the documents and details, we cannot advise you anything.
      ecopackindia team

  15. Whether survey No: 53 of Ullalu village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North taluk is deleted form acquisition for Sir M Vishveswaraiah Layout

  16. we have purchased an apartment from a reputed builder right amidst akravathy layout in knarayanpura hobli.The surrounding is totally deserted with no proper roads.We are waiting for the area to develop.Pls advise how long will it take to clear the akravathy layout issue and how far is the development of this area.

    1. Dear Sir,
      It is very difficult to predict the development and urbanisation of this area.
      ecopackindia team

  17. Kindly help me advising the course of action to be taken on the following:
    One builder formed a layout of over 300 sites in Yelahanka survey 29 during 1995. paid betterment charges to CMC for convertion during 1996. Registration of sites were made, khatha, tax etc. done through Sub-Registrar/ CMC. After seven years he pledged (among 300 sites) 26 sold & selected sites in a pvt. bank on the basis of RTC/Mutation for a meagre Rs.5 lakhs during 2001, hiding the fact of selling the said sites long before. He became defaulter and the bank auctioned the said 26 sites.
    What are the procedure/action to be taken to claim our sites.
    Kindly help us.

    1. Dear Sir,
      Please consult the best criminal lawyer and initiate action.
      ecopackindia team

  18. Hi,

    I am noor , i am planning to buy a constructed ground floor home located in thanisandara Village, Hobli, KR Puram and the survey no is 66/6 & 7 .Chikannaya Property , Please suggest me in this survey no comes under BDA notification and if yes after final notification from bda in 2004 was it deleted as well.

    Would need your help.


  19. Dear sir,
    BDA has issued a preliminary notification in 2005 for our land, but till now it has not acquired nor given NOC. I want to know for how many years is the P.N valid? – sunil.N

    1. Dear Sir,
      The BDA must complete the acquisition process within 5 years. But, there may be other objections, endorsements or notices or court suits pending, in such cases, it is till pending disposal of the petition.
      BDA will not issue NOC.

  20. I want to know if Survey No. 470 (Property No. 470/33) in Geddalahalli falls under Arkavathy Layout. I want to buy this property but want to make sure it is not notified by the BDA, before deciding to purchase. Please help me out here.

    1. Dear Sir,
      We can find out and report you the status. All services are chargeable.
      ecopackindia team

      1. Sure. Please let me know the details as to the process I need to follow to get an authentic solution to my problem. I will do what ever is required.

      2. Dear Sir,
        Please forward all the relevant details and documents related to the property and specific queries or requirements to, shall address your queries.
        ecopackindia team

  21. sir, one person has taken money and promised site. he has run away now. please help me. thanks

    1. Dear Sir,

      You may initiate criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings in the appropriate court for the recovery of your amount. If you have documentary evidence, please approach the jurisdictional police station and lodge a complaint about the incident.
      ecopackindia team

Comments are closed.