- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 50904 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI G V REDDY S/O GANGADHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 1665, 41STCROSS 18TH MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MADHAVACHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 080. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K G ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 4. THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO. 419, 12TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 BANGALORE-560 080. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI D NAGABUSHANAM …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SAI SHAKTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.LAQ (1) CR-278/82-83, DATED 28.04.1983, ISSUED U/S 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-AG IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner claiming to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.31 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Byatarayanapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (`schedulei property') having purchased the same from Smt.Munibachamma @ Bachamma, W/o Sri.Thimmaiah and one Smt.Venkatamma, W/o Sri.Anjanappa S.M., is before this Court seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the Notification No.LAQ (1) CR-278/82-83, dated 28.04.1983, issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-AG in respect of the schedule property in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 b) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the Notification No.RD 173 AQB 84 dated:28.02.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-AH in respect of the schedule property in the interest of justice and equity". 2. Case of the petitioner is that he had entered into an agreement of sale dated 02.04.1993 with the aforesaid persons intending to purchase the schedule property. As there was breach of the terms of agreement he filed suit in O.S.No.16611/2003 for specific performance which was decreed on 28.01.2004. Petitioner filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.25116/2010 before the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru and through the assistance of the Court obtained deed of conveyance pursuant to the said Judgment and decree. 3. That during the pendency of the said execution petition and after execution of deed of sale respondent No.4- housing society had filed an application causing obstruction claiming to be the beneficiary of an acquisition in which the subject land was acquired and sought to oppose in the execution. It is only then petitioner learnt about the acquisition - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 of land and learnt that respondent No.4 was claiming rights over the property in terms of a Preliminary Notification dated 28.04.1983 and Final Notification dated 28.02.1985 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner thus constrained to file the present petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Learned Senior counsel Sri.S.P.Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner reiterating the averments and grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and also taking this Court through the records contend that the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser of the property was misled both by the land owner as well as by the respondent No.4-Co-operative society in whose favour the acquisition was made. As regards the land owners, it is his submission that until execution of deed of sale pursuant to the Judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the land owners never brought to the notice of the petitioner regarding acquisition. As regards the Respondent No.4-Co- operative Society is concerned, it is his submission that the society had managed to get the land acquired through middlemen. Learned Senior counsel refers to paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1687 and submits that practice of acquiring the land for House Building Co-operative Societies through the medium of middlemen has been discouraged and the same has been deprecated. Thus, he submits process of acquisition is vitiated by fraud requiring to be quashed. 5. He refers to documents produced at Annexures-P and Q which are the communications addressed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and to the Revenue Commissioner and the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka respectively. Referring to the said communications learned Senior counsel submits that the land acquisition officer himself strongly recommended not to proceed with the acquisition inasmuch as there was no compliance of mandatory requirement of conducting enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. He submits that when the very acquiring authority had recommended not to proceed with the acquisition as far as back on 16.07.1984, there was no justification in respondent authorities proceeding further with the acquisition. Thus, he - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 submits the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are unsustainable. That petitioner being a bonafide purchaser had no occasion to object the acquisition he could only raise the concern by filing a writ petition after he becoming the owner and after obtaining information as noted above. He relies upon the following Judgments in support of his submissions: "1. 2016 (5) KCCR 652 (SC) [R. Rajashekar & Ors., Vs. Trinity House Building Co-operative Society & Ors) 2. 2012 AIR SCW 1687 [Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.] 3. AIR 2007 SC 1151 [Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Vs. V. Chandrappa & Ors.] 4. AIR 2007 SC 1546 [A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government of A.P] 5. AIR 1995 SC 2244 [H.M.T. House Building Co-Operative Society Vs. Syed Khader & Ors.,] 6. 2017(2) KCCR 1715 (DB) [Seetharam & Ors Vs. State by Secretaty & Ors] 7. 2016(3) AKR 274 (Secretary, Karnataka Govt. Class….. V/s - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 Smt Susheelamma by LRs & Ors]". Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-Co-operative Society at the outset taking this Court through the statement of objections and annexures thereto, particularly referring to the order produced at Annexure-R2 dated 18.07.2007 passed in W.P.No.6574/2005, he submits the very vendors of the petitioners who were the notified khathedars of the subject property had challenged the very same notifications and this Court after adverting to the very contentions raised by them had dismissed the said writ petition. He also refers to the contents of the said order, particularly paragraph 7, to advert to the allegation of fraud canvassed by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner, and submits similar grounds urged by the vendors of the petitioners have been negated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the very same order. He also refers to order dated 27.02.2008 passed in W.A.No.1620/2007 produced at Annexure-R-3 which was passed at the instance of the vendors of the petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge. Said appeal was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4-Co-operative Society further submits petitioner being a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to maintain the petition. In this regard he relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs Manpreet Singh and others reported in 2023 online SC 29. He further submits layouts have been formed, sites have been allotted to members of the society and possession is taken. Thus, he submits that the petition apart from being liable to be dismissed on the question of maintainability also liable to be dismissed on merits. 8. Learned AGA submits that the acquisition was in accordance with law. That after issuance of Final Notification on 28.02.1985, award was passed in the year 1986 itself, possession handed over on 08.03.1988, as such the petition requires to be dismissed. 9. Heard and perused the records. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 10. There is no dispute of the fact that preliminary notification was issued on 28.04.1983 under Section 4(1) followed by Final notification dated 28.02.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before adverting to other contentions it is necessary at this juncture to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar and anr Vs Union of India and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 wherein referring to various Judgments the Apex Court has held that alienation made subsequent to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) is void ab initio and purchaser gets no right, title and interest except right to seek compensation. That such subsequent purchase would not give any right in favour of the purchasers to question the acquisition which would be otherwise available to the land owners. 11. Admittedly petitioner entered into a sale agreement on 02.04.1993 which is after ten years subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification. The subsequent filing of suit for specific performance obtaining Judgment and decree on 28.01.2004 and deeds of sale in execution are insignificant as any transaction subsequent to acquisition is void ab initio. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 Therefore the petition challenging the acquisition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 12. Another aspect of the matter to be noticed is that vendors of the petitioner who were the notified khathedars admittedly had approached this Court by filing writ petition which was dismissed by order dated 18.07.2007 and an appeal carried by them in writ appeal in W.A.No.1620/2007 also resulted in dismissal. Thus when the challenge made by the vendors of the petitioner resulted in rejection and there cannot be any subsequent challenge by the subsequent purchaser on any count whatsoever. 13. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation allegedly perpetuated by his vendors as well as respondent No.4-Co- operative Society are of no consequence. Nonetheless the said issue having been raised by the vendors of petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has been addressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph 7 of the order. 14. Viewed from any angle no grounds whatsoever is found warranting interference by this Court. Petition lacks merit, therefore, the same is dismissed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6607 WP No. 50904 of 2014 At this juncture, learned Senior counsel vehemently submits that the compensation has not been received either by the petitioner or his vendors which is denied. It is submitted by respondents that the compensation was paid and has been received by the vendors of the petitioner. Needless to observe petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedy as may be permissible under law with regard to compensation if any. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29