- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.22676 OF 2022 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.10996 OF 2022 (LA-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.20469 OF 2022 (LA-RES) IN W.P. No.22676/2022 BETWEEN: MADE GOWDA S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, MARIGUDI BEEDI YAREGANAHALLI, MYSURU-570011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001. 4. VIDYASHANKAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED (REGD.), Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.885/A, 16TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, KHILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570004. (UNDER REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY) 5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU DISTRICT, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, COURT MOHALLA, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU-570002. 6. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570005 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-5; SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.LAQ(1) CR 71/1989-90, DATED 28.05.1991 UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT WHICH IS GAZETTE ON 06.06.1991 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. IN W.P. NO.10996/2022 BETWEEN: 1. RAGHU .B S/O LATE BHIMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO.86, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, YARAGANAHALLI, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 011. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 2. SHRI. M. CHANDRU S/O LATE MADEGOWEDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO.86, MARAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, YARAGANAHALLI, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 011. 3. SHRI. SWAMY M.C. S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO.104/1, GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL MAIN ROAD, YARAGANAHALLI, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU MYSURU DISTRICT-570 011. 4. SHRI. M. SHANKAR S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO.60, YARAGANAHALLI, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU DISRICT-570 011. 5. SHRI. RAMAKRSIHNA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/AT NO.11/1, YARAGANAHALLI, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU DISRICT-570 011. 6. SHRI. SIDDEGOWDA S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO.11/1, YARAGANAHALLI, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU DISRICT-570 011. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA KATTIMANI M., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 001. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/ THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU-570 001. 4. VIDYASHANKAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED (REGD.) BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.885/A, 16TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, KHILLE MAHULLA, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 004. (UNDER REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY ACT, 1960) 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSORE DISTRICT PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING COURT MOHALLA, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE-570 002. 6. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570005 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-5; SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.LAQ (1) CR.71/89-90, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 DATED 28.05.1991 UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT WHICH IS GAZETTED ON 06.06.1991 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND ETC. IN W.P. NO.20469/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O LATE SHIVALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. 2. SMT. S. GAYATHRI W/O UMESH .J D/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. 3. SMT. S. GAGANA W/O UMESH D/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. 4. MISS. S. GANAVI D/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 6. SRI SURYAKUMAR .S S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. 7. MS. SUSHMITHA .S D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. 8. MS. KAVYA .S D/O LATE SHVIANNA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANAGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001. 3. THE LAND ACQUIT ION OFFICER/ THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001. 4. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570005. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU DISTRICT, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, COURT MOHALLA, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU-570002. 6. VIDYASHANKARA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED (R), NO.885/A, 16TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, KHILLE MOHALLA MYSURU-570004 REP. BY IS SECRETARY. 7. SRI D. ANNAMALAI DEVELOPERS AND ESTATE CONSULTANT, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O LATE DORAISWAMY, R/AT NO.1027, CH-23, GF-5, NISARGADHAMA APARTMENTS, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570005. 8. SRI BHEEMEGOWDA S/O MADEGWODA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT YAGRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDARTHANGARA POST, MYSURU-570011. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-5; SRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.LAQ(1)CR.71/89-90 DATED 28.05.1991 UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT WHICH IS GAZETTED ON 06.06.1991 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER These writ petitions are directed against the land acquisition proceedings initiated more than three decades ago for the benefit of Vidyashankar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mysuru, in respect of the various agricultural lands situated in Sathagalli Village, Mysuru Taluk. 2. The acquisition commenced through a preliminary notification dated 28.05.1991, followed by the final notification dated 17.06.1992, culminating in the general award dated 30.03.1993 and the subsequent notification under Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) dated 24.11.1997 recording the taking of possession. Brief facts: 3. The lands involved in these writ petitions form part of an extent of approximately 50 acres notified for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 acquisition in Satagalli Village in 1991-1992. The survey numbers and the extents claimed are as follows: i. W.P. No.22676/2022 – Sy. No.75/4 measuring 2 acres, claimed by the legal heir of late Ningamma @ Chikkathayamma. ii. W.P. No.10996/2022 – Sy. Nos.74/2, 75/1, 75/2, 75/3 and 75/4 totally measuring 6 acres 17 guntas, claimed by the heirs of late Madegowda and late Bhimegowda. iii. W.P. No.20469/2022 – Sy. Nos.74/2, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 5 acres 24 guntas claimed by the heirs of late Shivanna and late Shivalingegowda. 4. The petitioners assert continuous cultivation and contend that the compensation was never paid to them nor deposited in Court. The very same notification and award were previously challenged by the petitioners’ predecessors and co-sharers in the following rounds of litigations: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 i. W.P. Nos.34457-34460/1992 filed by the landowners of Satagalli, including ancestors of the present petitioners, challenging to quash the preliminary notification dated 28.05.1991 and final notification dated 17.06.1992, came to be withdrawn on 27.03.1995 without liberty to file a fresh petition. ii. W.P. Nos.32258-261/1998 filed by another branch of the same family, challenging the same 1991 preliminary notification, 1992 final notification and 1993 award, which came to be dismissed on 21.01.1991 as barred in light of the earlier withdrawal, and the Court held that there was no illegality in the acquisition. iii. W.A. Nos.4192-4195/1999, preferred by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.32258-261/1998, were dismissed on 31.05.2000 on the ground of gross delay and on the further ground that the earlier - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 withdrawal operated as a bar, the acquisition having already been implemented. 5. Thus, the legality of the 1991 and 1992 notifications and the award dated 30.03.1993 stood concluded long before the present petitions. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ contends that compensation was neither paid nor validly deposited, rendering the award incomplete. It is further contended that the physical possession was never taken, Section 16(2) notification dated 24.11.1997 is mechanical in nature, and that the society was not a genuine co- operative society having any approved scheme. Hence, according to the petitioners, both possession and compensation being absent, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act, 2013’ for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 short) is attracted. It is further submitted that since fraud vitiates earlier proceedings, the bar arising from the earlier writ petition would not apply. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the possession was taken in 1997 and the award was passed way back in the year 1993, with compensation rendered and deposited, and therefore, the acquisition stood completed. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others1 (Indore Development Authority), it is submitted that once possession is taken, or compensation is paid/deposited, the acquisition does not lapse. It is further submitted that the layout has already been formed and the existing infrastructure developments demonstrates actual possession and vesting. It is submitted that the earlier writ petitions challenging the very same notifications were dismissed long ago and the present petitions are barred 1 AIR 2020 SC 1496 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 by res judicata, constructive res judicata and delay. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have not made out any independent legal ground distinct from the earlier writ petitions and hence, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners have made out any ground to reopen or invalidate the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the notifications dated 28.05.1991 and 17.06.1992, and the award dated 30.03.1993, which were previously challenged and have attained finality and whether the acquisition can now be declared as lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013?” 10. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 11. The earlier writ petitions of the year 1992, 1998 and the appeal of the year 1999 stated supra, challenging the same notifications and same award has attained finality for over 25 to 30 years. The successive attack on the very same notifications is impermissible, as it is barred by res judicata under Order II Rule 2 CPC and the petitioners have not pleaded any new or distinct ground in the present writ petitions. The award was passed on 30.03.1993 and Section 16(2) notification was issued on 24.11.1997 indicates that the land was vested in the State. Once vesting occurs, under Section 16, it is absolute and irreversible. 12. Merely because writ petition was dismissed on the earlier occasion for want of relevant material or for any other reasons other than the scheme was not implemented/scheme lapsed, award was not passed or possession was not taken, the petitioners would have a continuous cause of action to adjudicate/agitate the issue as regards to the non-compliance of the scheme. The - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 coordinate bench of this Court in Sri Ravindra T and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others2 (Ravindra), dealing with a similar issue has held at para No. 15 as under : “15. Answer to Point No.1: Whether a Writ Petition earlier filed contending that the Scheme had lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act having been dismissed, can petitioner file another Writ Petition on similar as also on additional grounds? 15.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.19877/2007 contending that the Scheme had lapsed. This Court dismissed the said Writ Petition on 16.08.2010 on the ground that there are no relevant materials produced by the petitioner to point out substantial lapse of the Scheme. 15.2. Whether a Scheme has lapsed or not, in my considered opinion, is a continuing cause of action inasmuch as if a petition is filed for declaration that the Scheme has lapsed, at the end of 10 years, which came to be dismissed and another petition is filed at the end of 15 2 W.P. 55159/2014, DD 19.07.2022 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 years placing on record that there is no substantial compliance with the Scheme, then this Court would be well within its powers to exercise jurisdiction to declare the Scheme has lapsed in terms of Section 27 of BDA Act. If however, the court were to come to a positive conclusion that the scheme has been implemented the same would constitute res judicata, since once a scheme is stated to have been substantially implemented no further proceeding could be filed stating that the scheme has not been substantially implemented. 15.3. Merely because a Writ Petition was dismissed on an earlier occasion for lack of relevant material, in my considered opinion cannot amount to a decision having been rendered on merits, there being no finding as regards whether the scheme has been implemented or not, if implemented whether it is substantially implemented or not and as such the same would not disentitle the petitioners to raise the same issue once again since until and unless there is a substantial compliance of the Scheme, the petitioners would have a continuing cause of action to agitate the issue as regards the non-compliance with the Scheme. The situation is akin to a suit for - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 injunction whenever there is any fresh cause of action to file a suit for injunction, the dismissal of an earlier suit would not come in the way of a fresh suit so long as the fresh suit is based on a fresh cause of action. This court in UFM Sudarshan Manjunath Hegde Vs. UFM Satyanarayan Govind Hegde in RSA No 5125 of 2013 more particularly para 3 thereof has observed as follows: 3. It is needless to emphasize that the cause of action to file an injunction suit is a continuous cause of action. If at all the plaintiff were to establish that there is a subsequent interference he can file one more suit 15.4. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the earlier Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.19877/2007 which came to be dismissed on 16.08.2010 on the ground that there are no relevant materials placed on record would not act as a res judicata and/or bar the petitioners from filing the present Writ Petition.” 13. The findings regarding the res judicata squarely applies to the present facts. As in the earlier writ petition, there was no determination whether the scheme was - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 implemented and in the absence of the same, it cannot be a bar to a later challenge. 14. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the Indore Development Authority, has held that two conditions specified in Section 24 (2) are to be cumulatively satisfied, i.e., a. Possession of the acquired land has not been taken and b. Compensation has not been paid- even if one of these two conditions is not satisfied, the LA Act, 1894 acquisition proceedings shall not lapse. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and Others3 (Anil Kumar Gupta) and particularly, on paragraph No.15 thereof to contend that a person who is deprived of his land can challenge the acquisition proceedings at various 3 (2012) 12 SCC 443 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 stages, and that improper taking of possession would invalidate the acquisition. The reliance on the said judgment is wholly misplaced. That decision would turn entirely on its own peculiar facts where the possession had admittedly not been taken in the manner known to law and where the proceedings had not attained finality. 16. In the present case, the very same notification dated 28.05.1991, final notification dated 17.06.1992 as well as the general award dated 30.03.1993, were previously challenged in W.P. Nos.34457-460/1992, which was dismissed as withdrawn, W.P. Nos.32258-261/1998, came to be dismissed on merits and confirmed in W.A. Nos.4192-4195/1999, thereby affirming the validity of the acquisition. The grounds now urged by the petitioners are materially identical to the grounds raised in the earlier rounds of litigation. The petitioners are therefore attempting to re-agitate the matter that has already been concluded, which amounts to an abuse of process of Court - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 and is barred by doctrine of res judicata, constructive res judicata and principles analogous to there too. 17. The Apex Court in the case of M.Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and others4 (M. Nagabhushan) has held in paragraph Nos.23 to 25 as under: “23. Thus, the attempt to re-argue the case which has been finally decided by the court of last resort is a clear abuse of process of the court, regardless of the principles of res judicata, as has been held by this Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi. In SCC para 44 of the Report, this principle has been very lucidly discussed by this Court and the relevant portions whereof are extracted below: (SCC p. 592) “44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata.” 4 AIR 2011 SC 1113 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 24. In coming to the aforementioned finding, this Court relied on The Supreme Court Practice, 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell (p. 344). The relevant principles laid down in the aforesaid practice and which have been accepted by this Court are as follows: (K.K. Modi case, SCC p. 592, para 43) “43. … ‘This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. … The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material.’ ” 25. On the premises aforesaid, it is clear that the attempt by the appellant to reagitate the same issues which were considered by this Court and were rejected expressly in the previous judgment in AIMO case, is a clear instance of an abuse of process of this Court apart from the fact that such issues are - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 barred by principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata and principles analogous thereto.” 18. The Apex Court in M. Nagabhushan’s case held that when a litigant repeatedly challenges the very same notification on identical grounds after the matter has attained finality, such repeated petitions are not maintainable and constitute a clear abuse of the process of law. The Apex Court reiterated that constructive res judicata applies to every ground that was urged or could not have urged in the earlier round, and that permitting the parties to re-litigate concluded issues would undermine the finality of the judicial decisions. Applying the said principles, the petition cannot derive any advantage from the decisions relied upon and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed on that ground as well. 19. Most importantly, in the Indore Development Authority stated supra once the possession is taken or compensation is rendered or deposit the acquisition does not lapse and Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 cannot be - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 invoked to unsettle the concluded proceedings. The Apex Court, in the case of Indore Development Authority, has held at paragraph No.366.9 as under: “366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition." 20. Upon perusal of the material on record, possession and deposit of the compensation was completed. Hence, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not attracted. These petitions have been filed in the year 2022. The challenge to the notifications of 1991 and 1992 and the award of 1999, after nearly three decades of silence, is fatal to the grant of discretionary relief, more so when the earlier proceedings have already culminated in - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48897 WP No. 22676 of 2022 C/W WP No. 10996 of 2022 WP No. 20469 of 2022 dismissal and have attained finality. There is no documentary evidence or material on record to substantiate the allegation of fraud. The petitioners have failed to establish any legal ground to reopen the acquisition that has attained finality in the earlier rounds of litigation and the challenge is barred by law and without merit and this Court pass the following: ORDER The writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32