IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 6496/2021) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RUKKAMMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. The appellants, Bangalore Development Authority and its Additional Land Acquisition Officer, are aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ appeal, viz., Writ Appeal No. 601/2020 (LA-BDA), by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on the ground of delay of 157 days. The said appeal was instituted by them against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 35143-35147/2019. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Judge reflects that he followed the earlier decision of the High Court in “ Smt. Huchamma vs. State of Karanataka and others 1 ” . There is no clarity emerging from the said order of the learned Judge as to whether the appellants were actually heard on that day. It is, however, clear that the writ petitions were disposed of on the very first day as notice seems to have been accepted by the learned State counsel only on the that day and, having recorded that, the learned Judge thereafter proceeded to 1 W.P. No. 21831/2016 decided on 15.09.2017 1
dispose of the matters in the light of the judgment in Smt. Huchamma (supra). Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants approached the Division Bench by way of a writ appeal, but with an application to condone the delay of 157 days. By the impugned judgment/order dated 19.01.2021, the Division Bench opined that sufficient grounds were not made out for condonation of the said delay. It appears that the Division Bench was not apprised of the fact that, owing to the then prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, this Court had already directed in M.A. No. 655/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 should be excluded. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench that the delay was not just 157 days but much more and that it remained unexplained was not justified. On that ground, we are inclined to hold that the delay, after exclusion of the period covered by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the order passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, was well within condonable limits and ought to have been condoned so as to allow the appellants to have their say on merits. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 19.01.2021 dismissing Writ Appeal No. 601/2020 (LA-BDA) and, in consequence, condoning the delay. The said writ appeal shall stand restored to the file of the High Court and the same shall be dealt with on its merits and in accordance with law. The intervenors, who filed applications before this Court seeking to be brought on record on the ground they have an interest 2
in the matter, are at liberty to file their intervention applications in the writ appeal before the High Court. We, however, make no comment on the merits of their applications or their claims. We make it clear that all issues have been left open to be addressed on merits by the Division Bench, after hearing all the parties concerned. Considering the period of time that has elapsed since the filing of the writ appeal, we would request the High Court to give priority to this matter and decide the same as expeditiously as possible. In keeping with the above request , we direct the Registry of the High Court to list the writ appeal before the roster Bench on 06.01.2026. The parties shall appear before the High Court on the said date. It is for the High Court to thereafter list the matter for hearing on an appropriate date, as per its convenience. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ......................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) ......................J. (ALOK ARADHE) NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 02, 2025. 3
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6496/2021 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2021 in WA No. 601/2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RUKKAMMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 40487/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 252184/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 194788/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 1422/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 194787/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION AND IA No. 1420/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 02-12-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Mr. Supantha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Navneet Jha, Adv. Mr. Anand Amrit Raj, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. Aman Panwar, AAG Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Jadhav Vishal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Mala Narayan, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Goel, AOR Ms. Anjali Dhingra, Adv. 4
Ms. V Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav R, Adv. Ms. Divya Sv, Adv. Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed 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) 5
ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6496/2021 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2021 in WA No. 601/2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RUKKAMMA (DEAD) & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 25-09-2025 This matter was orally mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR (Mentioned by) Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Ms. Divya Swami, AOR UPON MENTIONING, the Court made the following O R D E R The matter is taken on Board. Let the matter not be deleted from the notified date, that is, 11.11.2025. (BABITA PANDEY) (PREETI SAXENA) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6496/2021 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2021 in WA No. 601/2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RUKKAMMA (DEAD) & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 16-04-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Supantha Sinha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Abhinav R, Adv. Ms. Divya Sv, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent(s), the special leave petition is not taken up for hearing today, but it will remain on Board. However, we allow the application for substitution filed by the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1, subject to all just exceptions. Cause title be amended accordingly. (BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6496/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01- 2021 in WA No. 601/2020 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RUKKAMMA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. ) Date : 11-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of letter for adjournment circulated by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, re-list on a non-miscellaneous day in the month of January, 2023. The order of status-quo shall continue till the next date of hearing. (SONIA BHASIN) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1 ITEM NO.16 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6496/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2021 in WA No. 601/2020 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RUKKAMMA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. ) Date : 01-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Advocate waives notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Notice be issued to Respondent No.6. As prayed, four weeks' time is granted to file reply affidavit, and thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to file rejoinder affidavit.
2 List the matter after six weeks for final disposal on a non-miscellaneous day. In the meantime, status quo as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the suit property. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)