- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 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.640/2023 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: M.L. SADASHIVAYYA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRs. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE SADASHIVAYYA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRs. 1. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE S.M. JAYAMURTHI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.284, JANATHA COLONY MADANAYAKANAHALLI MADAVARA, BANGALORE-562 162. 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA M.S. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS #88, 10.3 CROSS, SUBHASH NAGARA NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL-562162. 3. SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS #19, NAGASANDRA COLONY NEAR ROCK LINE STUDIO RUKMINI NAGAR Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 NAGASANDRA BANGALORE-560073. 4. SMT. PUTTA HONNAMMA M.S. W/O MARULA SIDDAIAH .M AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS #78, MAHADESHWARA NILAYA SADASHIVAIAH GARDEN HANUMANTHA SAGARA ROAD MADANAYAKANAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH-562123. 5. MR. LINGAPRABHU M.S. S/O LATE M.L. SADASHIVAYYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS #82, BEHIND DEVATHA PLASTIC MADANAYAKANAHALLI MADAVARA, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-562123. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.P. SHANKAR, SR. ADV., FOR SMT. ANNU BHARDWAJ, ADV.,) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561203. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 3. JIRAMDAS EDUCATION TRUST A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST HITA NANDA II, 5TH FLOOR 48 LAVELLE ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 4. M/S LICHFL CARE HOMES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BOMBAY LIFE BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, NO.45/47 VEER NARIMAN ROAD MUMBAI-400001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE. 5. M/S LICHFL CARE HOMES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 MADANAYAKANAHALLI KUDURAGARI ROAD BANGALORE-62162 BY ITS MANAGER. 6. THE CHAIRMAN CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MADANAYAKANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE NORTH-562123. 7. THE CHAIRMAN VILLAGE PANCHAYATH MADANAYAKANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE NORTH-562123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. AAKASH RAMAN SINHA, ADV., FOR R4 & R5 SRI. RAVISHANKAR A, ADV., FOR R6 R3 & R7 ARE SERVED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/02/2023 PASSED IN WP NO.25074/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25074/2022 (LA-RES). 2. Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the husband of the appellant No.1 and the other family members were owning land in Sy.No.25/1 to an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas and in Sy.No.26 to an extent of 5 acres 11 guntas and the said lands were acquired by the State Government - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 vide final notification dated 23.11.1981 and thereafter, a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued. It is submitted that the lands were acquired by the respondent-Authorities without any notice to the land owners and no award was passed. Further, neither any compensation was paid to the landowners nor was it deposited before the Civil Court. Such an action is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that though the lands were acquired for public purpose, the same is now diverted for commercial purpose by constructing a building of residential complex. Hence, on this ground, the acquisition is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the appellants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Along with the said application, the documents i.e. an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the reply received from the respondents were produced which indicate that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 respondents have responded stating that no records are available. Such a reply of the respondents shows that no compensation is paid to the land losers and they cannot now contend that the primary documents relating to the acquisition are not available and such an aspect has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 4. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking the relief to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 23.11.1981 as null and void, a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 17.02.1989, declare that the action of the respondent No.1 in permitting the respondent No.3 to sell the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 schedule lands in favour of the respondent No.4 is illegal and contrary to law, direct the respondent No.2 to handover the schedule lands to the appellants as the acquisition had lapsed for non-passing of the award or in the alternate, direct the respondent No.2 to determine the present market value of the schedule lands and pay the same to the appellants. It is to be noticed that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, issued a preliminary notification dated 09.05.1980 to acquire the various extents of land for the purpose of the respondent No.3- Jiramdas Education Trust. The final notification was issued by the respondent No.1 on 23.11.1981. In the said notification, the appellants claimed that their lands in Sy.No.25/1 to an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas and in Sy.No.26 to an extent of 5 acres 11 guntas was acquired. The appellants filed a writ petition with an enormous delay of more than 41 years challenging the notification dated 23.11.1981 and 17.02.1989. The further contention of the appellants is that the sale of the acquired property by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4 is illegal. The sale deed was produced which indicates that the said property was transferred vide sale deed dated 06.02.2004. The said relief sought is also after a period of 18 years from the date of sale deed. The contention that the Authorities have neither passed an award nor paid the compensation, cannot be gone into in these proceedings after a period of 4 decades. A perusal of the writ papers and the writ appeal indicates that there is no whisper with regard to the delay in approaching the Court seeking the aforesaid relief. There is no dispute that the right to property is recognized under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. However, such a right cannot be sought to be enforced by the appellants-land losers after a period of 4 decades. It is also noticed that the appellants have made an attempt of securing the records of acquisition from the Authority and the said Authority have also issued an appropriate endorsement. We have perused the said endorsement issued by the Authority. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48526-DB W.A. No.640/2023 We do not find any error in such an endorsement. The contention that the acquisition was for the public purpose and now the lands are utilized for other than the purpose for which it was acquired, also cannot be gone into at this length of time and at the instance of the appellants in the present proceedings. The learned Single Judge, considering the law on the point dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for interference in this intra Court appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2