After nudging BDA for lapses in litigation management, Karnataka HC directs it to strictly enforce newly framed guidelines

The High Court of Karnataka has issued a stern directive to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to strictly adhere to newly formulated guidelines and circulars, issued for efficient management of its litigations after the court recently pointed out a “systematic failure” in handling court cases by the authority.

Also, the court directed the BDA Commissioner to view seriously and take appropriate action against the officers who violate the guidelines and circulars.

A Division Bench comprising Justices, D.K. Singh and T.M Nadaf, issued the directions while allowing appeals filed by the BDA against single judge’s order of quashing acquisition of a few lands in Gubbalala village for the Banashankari VI stage layout.

The Bench in March 2026 noticed that the BDA had withdrawn one of the appeals in July 2025 based on instructions from the then Chief Law Officer, K.G.V. Murthy. On the court’s directions, he filed an affidavit stating that he had instructed the BDA’s counsel to withdraw the appeal on the instructions of the then Commissioner, N. Jayaram.

After going trough the affidavit filed by Mr. Jayaram explaining the reason for withdrawal of appeal against single judge’s order, the Bench pointed out that his decision was without the BDA’s board resolution and the reasons cited by him for the withdrawal of the appeal was “not bonafide and in the interest of the BDA but for consideration other than legal and justified”.

Following these observations from the Bench, the BDA recalled its order to withdraw the appeal.

Also, the Bench in July 2026 directed the present BDA Commissioner P. Manivannan to come out with measures to prevent ‘systematic failure’ within the authority in handling the cases before the courts.

Following this direction, the BDA has issues guidelines for handling the litigations by it and against it before various legal fora. As per the guidelines, a Litigation Screening Committee, chaired by the Commissioner and including the Advocate General or a nominated Additional Advocate General, the Chief Law Officer, and a representative of the empanelled law firm, would examine all adverse judgments before deciding whether to file an appeal.

Furthermore, the guidelines mandate that “no case shall be withdrawn, settled or compromised without the prior approval of the Commissioner”. It also requires the digitisation of all litigation records through an E-Office system, the use of AI tools for case management where permissible, and regular monthly and quarterly review meetings.

The guidelines also mandates to share information related to court notices and orders through the BDA’s legal group on messaging app Whatsapp within 24 to 48 hours.

Meanwhile, a circular issued by the BDA Commissioner holds every officer, from the Nodal Officer to the Panel Advocate, personally responsible for compliance, stating that any negligence or delay resulting in prejudice to the interests of the authority would be viewed seriously.