- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 18974 OF 2022 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHWATHAPPA S/O. LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 32, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE-560 092, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. NAGARAJA RAO A/W SMT. SUKANYA H D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PODIUAM BLOCK, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. M/S. N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 NO. 84, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, SUN SMILE, SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY RE. UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI.B.N.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION DTD.3.1.1985 GAZETTED ON 4.1.1985 AT ANNEXURE-F AND DECLARATION BEARING NO.RD 197 AQB 82 DTD 22.9.1986 GAZETTED ON 25.9.1998 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THEREUNDER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on 04.01.1985 and final notification - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 25.09.1986 and all further proceedings. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends while pointing out to several of the documents filed along with the writ petition that it is clearly evident from the documents that one of the Directors of the third respondent-N.T.I House Building Co-operative Society has represented the petitioner’s father late Sri Marappa in all the proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which clearly shows that a fraud has been committed on the petitioner’s father and the petitioner in the matter of acquisition of 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.63/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is contended that the award notice has been received and signed by one Sri P.Krishna, who is a Director of the third respondent-Society. He has affixed signatures on behalf of Sri Marappa accepting the consent award and has handed over possession on behalf of Sri Marappa. Moreover, it is submitted that till date the petitioner has not given up the possession of the property - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 in question and no sites are formed on the land belonging to the petitioner. For that purpose, the Google Map is sought to be pressed into service. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the third respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri N.Ramaraju and Others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others reported in (2021) 6 Kant LJ 524(1), where in respect of the same notification, the Division Bench has held that when there is an inordinate delay in filing a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings and where all steps taken in acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be circumspect in quashing the Notification. It was noticed the writ petitions were filed in the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 after an inordinate delay of 19 years, 20 years, 21 years, 22 years and 23 years respectively, for which no explanation has been offered. It was therefore held that although fraud vitiates every - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 proceeding, nevertheless, even in case of fraud, challenge to the proceeding has to be made within reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery of the fraud. It was held that the pleadings in the writ petition are conspicuously silent with regard to the alleged date of detection or discovery of fraud. It was therefore held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the writ petition when all steps for the proceedings have been taken and have become final, such writ petitions cannot be entertained. The Division Bench upheld a decision of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed such writ petitions. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of this Court to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the petition to say that the petitioner has explained how and when he came to know about the acquisition proceedings and the fraud committed by the third respondent-Society. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the third respondent, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 learned HCGP and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds on a close scrutiny of the writ petition that no plausible explanation is forthcoming regarding the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition. It is noticeable that in the judgment of the Division Bench, the Division Bench did not accept the explanation sought to be offered by the petitioners therein for delay of 19 years to 23 years. In the present case, the delay is more than 40 years. This Court cannot accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no sites have been formed on the lands belonging to the petitioner and therefore it should be accepted that the petitioner was not aware of the acquisition proceedings. Along with the statement of objections filed at the hands of the third respondent under Annexure ‘R8’ is the layout plan sanctioned by the BDA in the year 2010. It is also stated that a modified plan was approved on 13.10.2015. List of allottees are also given in the statement of objections. That being the position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue stands squarely covered - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14813 WP No. 18974 of 2022 by the decision of the Division Bench as noticed hereinabove. 6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL