Supreme Court of India
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. P.G. BELLIAPPA on 27 October 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(arising out of SLP(C) Nos.4924-4925/2020)
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
.....
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P.G. BELLIAPPA
.....
RESPONDENT(S)
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 19192/2021)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, we find no grounds made out to interfere with the operative portion of the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which is presently under challenge.
3. However, we may clarify that in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.1, the acquisition of land to be made by the Bangalore Development Authority2 under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 19763, would be by
‘BDA’, for short
‘Act of 1976’ for short
Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.10.28 18:44:00 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
application of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 18944, and not by applying the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. To that extent, the observation made by the Division Bench in paragraph 30(iii) of the impugned order shall stand set aside, leaving it open to the BDA to take recourse to acquisition of the land in question under the Act of 1976 read with the Act of 1894.
4. We, however, reiterate the liberty granted by the Division Bench as to the respondent’s entitlement to claim possession of the land in the event acquisition proceedings are not commenced and completed expeditiously.
5. The appeals are allowed in part, in the aforestated terms.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. .....................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) .....................J. (SANJEEV SACHDEVA) NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 27, 2026.
‘Act of 1894’ for short
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 4924-4925/2020 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-11-2019 in WA.CROB No. 2/2019 05-11-2019 in WA No. 2535/2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS P.G. BELLIAPPA Respondent(s) (IA No. 59507/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH SLP(C) No. 19192/2021 (IV-A) (IA No. 52465/2022 - PERMISSION TO PLACE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND GROUNDS)
Date : 27-10-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv.(N/P) Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Kaveri G. Kuruvatti, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Vijender Kumar, Adv. Ms. Oorja Goel, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (BABITA PANDEY) (PREETI SAXENA) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)