Karnataka High Court dismisses property claim over Bangalore Development Authority land after 53 yrs
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Venu, the petitioner, approached the court contesting BDA's rights over a property in Thippasandra, which was part of a land acquisition process initiated under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act-1945. The preliminary notification for acquisition was issued on Sept 22, 1970, followed by the final notification on July 15, 1971.
Venu, who claimed he had purchased the property on Oct 4, 1995 — 25 years after the acquisition — approached the court on Sept 29, 2023, after BDA listed the site for e-auction as part of HAL 3rd Stage layout on Sept 16, 2023.
He argued that he had possession of the 1,950 sqft site since 1995, had utilities and khata in his name, and claimed that BDA had never acquired the property.
BDA countered that the petitioner had no valid title and pointed to the extensive delay in raising objections. The authority argued that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings long after the process is completed.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, after reviewing the case, ruled that the petitioner failed to prove ownership or show that landowner Kenchamma had legally sold the site to him.
The judge also relied on the Supreme Court rulings that bar subsequent purchasers from contesting land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act-1894, stating that such purchases are done at the buyer's risk.
"There is no need to examine beyond the timeline of events. The petitioner's claim collapses for lack of valid title and the inordinate delay of 53 years," the court observed. The petition was dismissed, leaving the BDA free to proceed with the auction of the site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Telangana High Court pulls up BHEL for threatening employee housing society over wall built on its land
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday suspended a notice that Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) had issued to Sri Sneha BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited objecting to a compound wall the society had built on land allotted to it. The notice accused the society's members of working against its interests. BHEL threatened the members of the society with stoppage of medical benefits to retired employees and disciplinary action against serving employees as per the conduct, discipline, and appeal rules if the wall was not taken down within three days of the receipt of its notice. A bench of Justice T Madhavi Devi suspended the notice dated July 15, 2025 while dealing with a petition filed by the society, comprising both retired and serving employees of BHEL, seeking quashing of the order that it argued was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and (g), 21, 300A, and 311 of the Constitution of India. The case stems from a land alienation process and demarcation of its boundary in Mumanoor village in Sangareddy district's Ramachandrapuram area. The society was allotted 3.31 acres of land here and it was registered through a sale deed in favour of the society on August 19, 2017. When the society initiated steps to raise a boundary wall to prevent encroachments, BHEL objected. The society then approached the assistant director of survey and land records, requesting official demarcation of boundaries allotted to it, but in vain. The housing society members then moved the high court, which ordered a survey. The survey, conducted on June 11, corroborated the boundaries and the extent of land as recorded in the sale deed. The society contended that the wall construction started after the survey was completed and boundaries were fixed, but that BHEL was unlawfully interfering in the activity and misusing its position as the employer of several members of the society. Mayur Mundra, the counsel for the society, argued that the notice was arbitrary and illegal as the society members were protecting the land allotted to the society and that BHEL cannot coerce them to follow its instructions when the land is allotted to the society. He further argued that the members' retirement benefits and medical benefits cannot be curtailed to put pressure on them to follow BHEL's 'whimsical demands'. The judge questioned the BHEL counsel how the members' actions would go against the interest of the society and said that 'such a notice could not have been issued as it amounted to violation of fundamental rights'.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
BluSmart follows Gensol group firms into insolvency after ₹1.28 cr default
The wheels have come off the fraud-hit BluSmart Mobility, once hailed as a pioneer in India's electric ride-hailing startup, as the company has been formally admitted into insolvency by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Ahmedabad. The move follows payment defaults totalling over ₹ 1.28 crore and adds BluSmart to a growing list of Gensol-linked entities now undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, including its parent Gensol Engineering Ltd and sister concern Gensol EV Leasing Pvt Ltd. In an order dated 28 July, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Sharma (Technical Member) admitted BluSmart into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 'In light of the above findings, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Financial Creditor is entitled to the relief as sought. The Corporate Debtor's default justifies the admission of the petition and the initiation of CIRP under the Code,' the tribunal said in its order, reviewed by Mint. The dispute with the financial creditor began after BluSmart Mobility raised ₹ 15 crore through 15 non-convertible debentures (NCDs) on 20 April 2023, with Catalyst Trusteeship as the debenture trustee. Under the agreement, BluSmart was to start repaying the principal by 30 April 2023, but unilaterally deferred it to 31 May, which Catalyst viewed as a breach. In early 2025, BluSmart defaulted on payments due in February, March, and April—totalling ₹ 1.28 crore, prompting Catalyst Trusteeship to seek insolvency proceedings against the company. Supporting documents included default notices, bank records, and an email from co-founder Anmol Singh Jaggi admitting liability that led to the admission of insolvency plea. BluSmart opposed the insolvency plea, arguing that the defaults were temporary, the petition was premature and motivated and that procedural issues such as missing IRP details and vague timelines weakened the creditor's case. The company also pointed to the 15 April Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) order against Gensol Engineering and its promoters as background pressure behind the filing. However, the tribunal rejected all objections, holding that the defaults were material and proven, the promoter had admitted liability, and procedural gaps had been corrected. It also stated that the Sebi order had no bearing on BluSmart's contractual obligations to repay its lenders. The tribunal appointed NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), which will now take control of BluSmart's management, issue public notices and invite claims from creditors. A moratorium has also been imposed, halting all ongoing or new legal actions, asset transfers and recovery proceedings against the company. Under IBC timelines, the IRP must invite claims within three days and constitute a Committee of Creditors (CoC) within 30 days. The entire resolution process must be completed in 180 days, extendable by another 90 days. If no viable resolution plan is approved within that time, BluSmart may face liquidation. With BluSmart joining Gensol Engineering and Gensol EV Leasing in insolvency, legal experts believe the case may become a landmark test for group insolvency in India—a concept not yet formally codified in law. Courts have, however, allowed consolidated proceedings in rare cases like Videocon, where 13 related companies were treated as a single economic entity. 'This could set the stage for group insolvency. If operational and financial links between these firms are clearly established, it may prompt courts to adopt a similar approach,' said Raheel Patel, partner at Gandhi Law Associates. 'The real challenge ahead is determining whether their assets and debts should be resolved jointly or separately, and whether overlapping creditors and related-party transactions will be prioritized for scrutiny,' Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates, said. When BluSmart defaulted and suspended operations, those same vehicles used as collateral for Gensol loans became value at risk. Power Finance Corporation Ltd and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd (Ireda) were thus exposed to defaults arising from both entities, effectively making them overlapping creditors, she added. Parth Contractor, founder, Chambers of Parth Contractor, said, "When one entity has a financial crunch, its ripple effects are noticed in sister concerns or associated entities. But the decision to admit a company into insolvency, does not depend on the position of the sister concerns or the group company, but solely on the transaction/issue between the specific debtor and the specific creditor, which in this case was BluSmart and Catalyst Trusteeship". BluSmart's insolvency is the latest and perhaps the most visible blow to the Gensol Group, which has been under intense regulatory scrutiny. In June, Ireda revealed that Gensol Engineering had defaulted on loans worth ₹ 510 crore. On 15 April, the Sebi issued an interim order accusing Anmol and Puneet Jaggi of diverting investor funds meant for electric vehicle purchases towards personal luxuries, including a $5 million apartment and high-end golf equipment. Sebi also found that Gensol had procured only 4,704 electric vehicles despite claiming funding for 6,400. Both promoters resigned from Gensol's board on 6 May. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), on 7 May, declined to stay Sebi's order and asked the company to respond, with the market regulator expected to issue a final decision thereafter.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
BluSmart follows Gensol group firms into insolvency after ₹1.28 cr default
The wheels have come off the fraud-hit BluSmart Mobility, once hailed as a pioneer in India's electric ride-hailing startup, as the company has been formally admitted into insolvency by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Ahmedabad. The move follows payment defaults totalling over ₹ 1.28 crore and adds BluSmart to a growing list of Gensol-linked entities now undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, including its parent Gensol Engineering Ltd and sister concern Gensol EV Leasing Pvt Ltd. In an order dated 28 July, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Sharma (Technical Member) admitted BluSmart into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 'In light of the above findings, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Financial Creditor is entitled to the relief as sought. The Corporate Debtor's default justifies the admission of the petition and the initiation of CIRP under the Code,' the tribunal said in its order, reviewed by Mint. The dispute with the financial creditor began after BluSmart Mobility raised ₹ 150 crore through 15 non-convertible debentures (NCDs) in April 2023, with Catalyst Trusteeship as the debenture trustee. Under the agreement, BluSmart was to start repaying the principal by 30 April 2023, but unilaterally deferred it to 31 May, which Catalyst viewed as a breach. In early 2025, BluSmart defaulted on payments due in February, March, and April—totalling ₹ 1.28 crore, prompting Catalyst Trusteeship to seek insolvency proceedings against the company. Supporting documents included default notices, bank records, and an email from co-founder Anmol Singh Jaggi admitting liability that led to the admission of insolvency plea. BluSmart opposed the insolvency plea, arguing that the defaults were temporary, the petition was premature and motivated and that procedural issues such as missing IRP details and vague timelines weakened the creditor's case. The company also pointed to the 15 April Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) order against Gensol Engineering and its promoters as background pressure behind the filing. However, the tribunal rejected all objections, holding that the defaults were material and proven, the promoter had admitted liability, and procedural gaps had been corrected. It also stated that the Sebi order had no bearing on BluSmart's contractual obligations to repay its lenders. The tribunal appointed NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), which will now take control of BluSmart's management, issue public notices and invite claims from creditors. A moratorium has also been imposed, halting all ongoing or new legal actions, asset transfers and recovery proceedings against the company. Under IBC timelines, the IRP must invite claims within three days and constitute a Committee of Creditors (CoC) within 30 days. The entire resolution process must be completed in 180 days, extendable by another 90 days. If no viable resolution plan is approved within that time, BluSmart may face liquidation. With BluSmart joining Gensol Engineering and Gensol EV Leasing in insolvency, legal experts believe the case may become a landmark test for group insolvency in India—a concept not yet formally codified in law. Courts have, however, allowed consolidated proceedings in rare cases like Videocon, where 13 related companies were treated as a single economic entity. 'This could set the stage for group insolvency. If operational and financial links between these firms are clearly established, it may prompt courts to adopt a similar approach,' said Raheel Patel, partner at Gandhi Law Associates. 'The real challenge ahead is determining whether their assets and debts should be resolved jointly or separately, and whether overlapping creditors and related-party transactions will be prioritized for scrutiny,' Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates, said. When BluSmart defaulted and suspended operations, those same vehicles used as collateral for Gensol loans became value at risk. Power Finance Corporation Ltd and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd (Ireda) were thus exposed to defaults arising from both entities, effectively making them overlapping creditors, she added. BluSmart's insolvency is the latest and perhaps the most visible blow to the Gensol Group, which has been under intense regulatory scrutiny. In June, Ireda revealed that Gensol Engineering had defaulted on loans worth ₹ 510 crore. On 15 April, the Sebi issued an interim order accusing Anmol and Puneet Jaggi of diverting investor funds meant for electric vehicle purchases towards personal luxuries, including a $5 million apartment and high-end golf equipment. Sebi also found that Gensol had procured only 4,704 electric vehicles despite claiming funding for 6,400. Both promoters resigned from Gensol's board on 6 May. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), on 7 May, declined to stay Sebi's order and asked the company to respond, with the market regulator expected to issue a final decision thereafter. Meanwhile, Gensol Engineering, now also under CIRP, has issued advertisements seeking to lease out pre-owned EVs at fixed rentals, in what appears to be an effort to monetize stranded assets amid the group's widening financial crisis.
