BDA Cannot Revive a Quashed 2005 Ring Road Notification: Karnataka HC on Sakalavara Land

In December 2005, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a preliminary notification to acquire land for the Peripheral Ring Road, including two parcels at Sakalavara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. No final notification followed for them. No award was passed. In 2011 the BDA resolved to drop the acquisition for all land outside an extent already covered by a final notification. Courts at three levels then confirmed that the 2005 notification no longer applied to these two parcels. And yet, in January 2025, the BDA's land acquisition officer for the Bangalore Business Corridor sent the owner notices asking for objections to that same 2005 notification. On 30 October 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed those notices.

The order, in Smt. Gita Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 6751 of 2025, was passed by Justice K.S. Hemalekha. It is short, but it matters for anyone buying land near the planned Peripheral Ring Road, because it shows what a final court order on an old notification is worth when an authority tries to revive it.

The short answer. The court held that the notices dated 20.01.2025 under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act, 1976 were "without any subsisting legal foundation," because the 12.12.2005 preliminary notification "no longer survives insofar as the petitioner's properties are concerned." That position had been fixed by a 2021 single judge order, a Division Bench judgment of 19.10.2022, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the BDA's special leave petition on 04.05.2023. The trade-off: the relief covers only this owner's 4 acres 24 guntas. The BDA has relied on Supreme Court directions to acquire land for the project, and the order says a final notification had issued for 321 acres 10 guntas of other land.

What did the High Court decide on 30 October 2026?

It allowed the writ petition. The operative part reads: "Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notices dated 20.01.2025 issued by respondent No.3 under Section 17(5) of the Act are hereby quashed." Respondent No. 3 was the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Business Corridor 07, of the BDA.

The court framed the question as whether that officer "was justified in issuing the impugned notices dated 20.01.2025 under Section 17(5) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to submit objection to the preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005, notwithstanding that the said notification and consequential acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's property had already been quashed by this Court and order had attained finality." Its answer was no. The order records that the 2021 order "has attained finality and continues to bind the respondents."

What land and which project are involved?

According to the order, the petitioner claims to own 2 acres in Sy. No. 75/3 (old Sy. No. 75/1) and 2 acres 24 guntas in Sy. No. 81/2 at Sakalavara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, inherited from the petitioner's late father, S.R. Bhaskara Reddy. The petition was filed through a GPA holder.

The BDA issued the preliminary notification of 12.12.2005 under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act "proposing to acquire the aforesaid lands for formation of the Peripheral Ring Road." The 2022 Division Bench judgment, reported as Bangalore Development Authority v. Ms. Gita Reddy, describes the purpose as the "formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II)." The 2025 notices carried references to "B.B.C-7/P.R.R-2," the order shows.

How was the 2005 notification set aside the first time?

On grounds of delay. The 2026 order says the single judge, by order dated 17.04.2021, took note of the BDA's 2011 resolution "and the failure of the respondents to complete the acquisition proceeding despite the lapse of more than 15 years," and "expressly quashed the preliminary notification dated 12.12.2005 and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as the petitioner's schedule properties were concerned."

The BDA appealed. Before the Division Bench, its counsel relied on Supreme Court directions in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1614 to 1616 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661 to 7663 of 2018, which, the 2022 judgment records, "directed the BDA and State Government to acquire the land for the formation of PRR Project." The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court then dismissed the BDA's special leave petition, SLP (C) Diary No. 12708 of 2023, on 04.05.2023.

The 2026 order notes that the earlier ruling in the petitioner's favour "is known as the Gita Reddy's case." With the Supreme Court's dismissal, the order says, "the order quashing the acquisition proceedings has attained finality."

Why can a preliminary notification not be kept alive indefinitely?

Because, the 2022 Division Bench held, the power must be used within a reasonable time even where no deadline is written into the law. Its words: "Just because there is no period prescribed for issuance of final notification after the issuance of preliminary notification, the preliminary notification cannot be treated as some kind of reservoir from which the Government can go on issuing successive final notification as and when it wants."

It added: "Even if the statute does not prescribe any period of limitation to exercise the power, it has to be exercised within a reasonable time." The Bench found "No cogent explanation" for 17 years without a final notification, and spelled out the cost to owners: "they can neither fully enjoy the properties nor develop their properties nor alienate the properties, as they like."

The Bench also noted that the BDA had passed its 2011 resolution and "The Government has not taken any decision on the BDA's resolution for more than 10 years." It cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC that authorities have "a legal obligation" to complete acquisition proceedings "at the earliest" and pay compensation.

Why did the 2025 notices fail?

Because they rested on a notification that had already been quashed for this land. The petitioner's senior counsel argued the notices were "wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the orders passed by this Court which have attained finality." The court agreed that, "In light of the aforesaid undisputed position," the notices "cannot be sustained."

The State and the BDA were both represented at the hearing. The order lists the Advocate General, K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the State, and senior advocate G.S. Kannur appearing for the BDA and its land acquisition officer. The order does not record any separate argument by them in support of the notices; its reasons section turns entirely on the earlier orders having attained finality.

The petitioner had also asked for a direction restraining the authorities from interfering with possession. The operative order quashes the notices; it does not separately set out an injunction.

Does this ruling free other land under the 2005 notification?

Not by itself. The orders described in this ruling speak of the petitioner's properties. The 2026 order records that the BDA's 2011 resolution kept the acquisition alive for "321 acres 10 guntas for which a final notification had been issued," and that the petitioner's land was not part of that extent. Owners of other survey numbers would need to look at their own position and any orders on their land.

PropNewz covered a related ring road case today, where a newer BDA notification was put on hold, in the PRR-1 Clover Leaf ruling, and an older BDA acquisition declared lapsed in the Banaswadi case.

What should buyers near the planned ring road check?

Whether a notification still applies to the exact survey number, and whether any court order has settled that. The Sakalavara case shows a quashed notification can still produce fresh notices years later. Before buying, use this list.

1. Ask the BDA whether the survey number appears in any preliminary notification for the Peripheral Ring Road, with the date.
2. Check whether a final notification was issued for that survey number, or whether it falls in the dropped extent.
3. Ask whether any award was passed or possession taken.
4. Get copies of any court orders quashing the notification for that land, and check whether appeals were dismissed.
5. Ask the seller whether any Section 17(5) notice or other BDA notice has been received recently.
6. Remember that an order in favour of one owner may not cover neighbouring survey numbers.
7. Take legal advice before paying, since project acquisitions can involve Supreme Court directions as well as High Court orders.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka High Court decide in Smt. Gita Reddy v. State of Karnataka?

On 30 October 2026 Justice K.S. Hemalekha quashed notices dated 20.01.2025 issued by the BDA's land acquisition officer under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act, which asked the owner to object to a 2005 Peripheral Ring Road notification already quashed for the land.

Why were the BDA's 2025 notices quashed?

The 12.12.2005 preliminary notification had been quashed for these parcels by a single judge in 2021, the Division Bench dismissed the BDA's appeal in 2022, and the Supreme Court dismissed its SLP in 2023. Notices based on it had no subsisting legal foundation.

Can a BDA preliminary notification stay alive indefinitely?

The 2022 Division Bench held it cannot be treated as a reservoir for issuing final notifications whenever the government wants. Even without a statutory deadline, the power must be used within a reasonable time, and 17 years without explanation was too long.

Does the ruling cover other land under the same notification?

Not by itself. The orders speak of the petitioner's properties. The 2026 order records the BDA kept acquisition alive for 321 acres 10 guntas under a final notification. Owners of other survey numbers must check their own status and any court orders.

This article summarises a court order for general information and is not legal or investment advice. The order may be subject to appeal.

Last updated 2026-11-08. PropNewz Team.