IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1366 OF 2023 (LA-KHB) BETWEEN: 1 . MUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT. YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 107 2 . SMT. NAGAVENI W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. HUCHANAHALLI VILLAGE MUTHUR POST DENKANA KOTE TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT 3 . SMT. CHANDRAPRABHA W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. MATHIGERE VILLAGE KYATLAFARAM POST HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT-635 110 2 4 . SMT. Y.M. VINOD W/O MARAPPA C.M. S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT. YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE (POST) ANEKAL TALUK ATTIBELE HOBLI BENGALURU-562 107 5 . SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE (POST) ANEKAL TALUK ATTIBELE HOBLI BENGALURU-562 107 ...APPELLANTS (By SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2 . THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 3 . THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 ...RESPONDENTS (By SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2 AND R3) 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.47308/2013 (LA-KHB) DATED 30.03.2023 IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30.03.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.47308/2013 (LA-KHB). 2. Heard Shri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 4 3. The writ petition had been filed by the appellants herein challenging the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Karnataka State Housing Board. The Final Notification dated 15.03.2008 was under challenge mainly on the ground that the Land Acquisition initiated without finalising and publishing of a Land Development Scheme or a housing scheme was violative of Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (for short 'KHB Act'). 4. The learned Single Judge, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka Housing Board and another v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2022)18 SCC 194, held that there is no mandatory requirement that the initiation of proceedings for acquisition invoking power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without a housing scheme being in existence or a housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) of the KHB Act would not render such proceedings null and void and that the existence of a duly published final scheme is not a precondition for issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there were other grounds raised in the writ petition which ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge. He therefore seeks a remand of the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for considering the other grounds. However, we notice that the other grounds raised in the writ petition were as follows:- "f) The notification issued is otherwise opposed to law and facts. g) The authorities have acquired vast land for formation of residential layouts and if the acquisition extends, the agricultural sector would suffer a severe blow. h) Petitioner state in all humility that the scheme is not entitled by the State Government to the Karnataka Housing Board for executions. No notification has been issued in the Gazette . i) The petitioner states that the respondents have acted discriminately in acquiring the lands of the petitioner and in deleting the lands belonging to influential persons of the locality from the preliminary notification. The authorities have deleted 3 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.14/1, 4 acres in Sy.No.21/1 of the same village, Sy.No.139 of Jigala village to the extent of 4 acres, in Sy.No.47 to the extent of 6 acres 26 guntas and in sy.no.190/1 to 6 the extent of 4 acres 14 guntas and such other lands in the above said village. j) x x x x x k) Petitioner submits that no notice of acquisition was served on him. Hence, the acquisition is bad in law." 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following decisions:- • V.A. Narasimha Reddy v. Government of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 3571; • Hari Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 339; • Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 210; 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 has relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in K. Rangaswamy v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1483. 8. We notice that it is an admitted fact that Section 4(1) Notification was published as required under Law and the appellants have no case that they had submitted any objections pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification. It is trite 7 law that there is no mandatory requirement that notice has to be individually served on the landowners for enabling them to submit their objections, if any. The notification as provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ought to have alerted the appellants and if they chose to file objections they could have done so. 9. Further, the contention with regard to discrimination which is raised in the appeal is also totally untenable since the requirement for land in public interest is to be assessed by the appropriate authorities and the challenge on the ground that the other lands have been exempted from the notification cannot be a valid ground for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition. 10. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that nothing survives for consideration in this appeal in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, stated supra. 11. The appeal fails accordingly and the same shall stand dismissed. 8 All pending interlocutory applications shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*