The Supreme Court slammed BDA over a shocking land transfer scam, exposing how public property was illegally handed to private parties, raising serious concerns about misuse of authority.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment, the Supreme Court of India has exposed how the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) colluded with private individuals to facilitate the return of land acquired for public use back into private hands. The Court, while quashing criminal proceedings against the appellants in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., expressed serious concern over the conduct of the BDA and the dilution of public interest.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Disobedience, Demotes AP Officer for Ignoring Court Order
Background
The land in question, located in Bhoopasandra Village, Bangalore North Taluk, had been acquired by the BDA under notifications issued in 1978 and 1982. Despite the land being allotted to beneficiaries under a development scheme, the State issued a de-notification in 1992, which was later quashed by the High Court in 1996. The Supreme Court upheld this quashing in 2015, cementing the acquisition as valid and final.
However, in a turn of events in 2015, fresh writ petitions were filed claiming the acquisition had lapsed. A single judge allowed these petitions in 2016, and shockingly, BDA withdrew its intra-court appeals, effectively letting the High Court’s decision stand unchallenged.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah minced no words:
“We have no hesitation in saying so, what could only be termed as collusive litigation between the BDA and the appellants.”
The Court went on to state that public interest, especially that of Bangalore’s citizens, had been “compromised due to extraneous considerations” and “acts of omission and commission by statutory bodies.”
The case also involved a criminal complaint by Keerthiraj Shetty, who claimed he had entered into an agreement to sell (ATS) with the accused, involving a substantial sum of money. He alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy when the accused revoked the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and refused to execute a sale deed.
However, the Supreme Court found no criminal intent at the inception of the transaction and noted that the property belonged to the accused, thereby negating any claim of criminal breach of trust.
The Court observed:
“We do not find any criminal aspect in the allegations ex-facie. The proceedings are an abuse of process.”
The FIR, chargesheet dated August 28, 2024, and the magistrate’s cognizance order of August 30, 2024, were all quashed.
While considered to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to undo the 2016 High Court ruling that favoured the appellants, the Bench held back, only because the BDA had already filed a separate appeal (SLP (C) Nos. 10134-10135/2025) in the matter. The Court, however, made its disapproval of the BDA’s prior inaction loud and clear.
Until the Supreme Court hears that matter, the Bench ordered,
“No third-party rights will be created or given effect to in the subject property.”
Case Title: SN Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8626 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Justice Yashwant Varma
