- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2228 OF 2022 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI V SREENIVASAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI SENIOR COUSNEL FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE SECRETARIAT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK VISVESWARAIAH TOWER DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 5. THE PRESIDENT EX SERVICEMEN HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.652/B, 2ND FLOOR DR RAJKUMAR ROAD 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. 6. SRI B R LAKSHMIKANTH S/O RANGASHETTY AGED MAJOR, REAL ESTATE AGENT M/S BANGALORE ENGINEERING CONTRATOR C/O DOSHI INDUSTRIES NO.17 VISWA GANDHI COMPLEX GUNDOPANTH STREET BENGALURU-560 002. 7. THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 052. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 8. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. 9. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS GOVERNMENT OF KARANATAKA CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009. 10. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R7, R9 & R10; SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R8 SRI. K.R. KRISHNA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR R5 V/O DATED 24.09.2024 NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS BY ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD. 23.09.1988 AS WELL AS FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD. 11.10.1989 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, HAS LAPSED BY OPERATION OF LAW UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE ACT AND IN TERMS OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2020(8) SCC 129 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court for the sixth occasion challenging the acquisition made by the respondent-State in respect of land measuring 5 acres and 30 guntas in Sy.No.1/1A and land measuring 4 acres and 31 guntas in Sy.No.1/3 both situated at Hosahalli, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk which were acquired by the respondent-State in terms of preliminary notification dated 23.08.1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and final notification dated 10.10.1998 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Before adverting to the grounds and contentions urged in this writ petition, it is appropriate to refer to the previous proceedings which were initiated in respect of the very same acquisition, which are as under: (a) First of the proceedings were initiated by one Thimaiah son of Venkatappa, who is paternal uncle of the petitioner herein in W.P.No.30782/1992. On the ground of non-service of award notice. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 07.09.1993 dismissed the said writ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 petition holding that the contention urged therein was untenable. (b) Thereafter, a writ petition in W.P.No.35685- 86/1995 was filed by one Sri. V Mohan Kumar son of Sri. Venkatappa and Sri. V. Srinivasaiah son of Sri. Venkatappa (the petitioner herein) urging the similar contentions which were raised by their uncle in the aforesaid writ petitions. However, also raised additional grounds on the premise that their uncle had not pleaded certain material facts. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 28.01.1997, specifically taking note of the contention urged, more particularly with regard to payment of compensation and the possession having been taken, dismissed the said writ petitions. No challenge was made to the said order dated 28.01.1997 and the same attained finality. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court yet again by filing writ petition in W.P. No.27298/2004, this time raising the ground with regard to violation of provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 in the process of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 acquisition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 01.12.2008 negating the contentions urged in the said writ petition dismissed the same. (d) An appeal in W.A.No.369/2009 against the said order had been filed by the very same petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.06.2009 dismissed the said writ appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (e) Petitioner yet again approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.36564/2012 raising the very same grounds which were earlier raised in the previous round of proceedings. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 20.05.2014 dismissed the said writ petition. (f) As against which petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.1517/2014, the Division Bench of the Court taking note of the previous proceedings, encapsulating the pleadings made in the previous proceedings in a comparative chart as found in the internal page No.39 of the order and taking serious exception to the repeated challenges mounted by the petitioner only to stall the acquisition and to delay the benefit of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 acquisition to the members of the respondent No.5-Society dismissed the said writ appeal imposing cost of rupees Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner. (g) The said order of the Division Bench of this Court was carried to the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.8792/2020, which also resulted in its dismissal. (h) It appears a review petition in R.P.No.267/2022 is filed seeking review of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which also resulted in its dismissal. 3. The present writ petition is sixth attempt before this Court, this time invoking the grounds under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013' for short). 4. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Karthik V, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset fairly submits that the petitioner having approached this Court on many occasions, would only urge two - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 grounds in the present petition; firstly, the possession of the acquired land not having been taken in the manner known to law; secondly, award not having been passed, giving raise to fresh cause of action under sub section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and submits that the case of the petitioner would squarely fall within the paragraph Nos.366.7 and 366.8 of the said judgment. 5. In furtherance to aforesaid submission learned Senior counsel rely upon a Communication issued by respondent- SLAO, which is produced by the petitioner along with a rejoinder dated 24.02.2025 at Annexure-Y2 dated 09.02.2023, wherein the respondent-SLAO has informed the petitioner herein that in the records available in the Office, there is no information available with regard to either any consent award having been passed in favour of the land owners or any compensation having paid to the landowners or even having deposited before the Court. Referring to said documents, learned Senior counsel submits that the said document would - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 categorically indicate that though the land was acquired as far back as in the year 1988, even according to the records maintained by the respondent-SLAO neither the award is passed nor the compensation is paid. He also refers to an affidavit, which is filed yet again by the respondent-SLAO pursuant to the order passed by this Court wherein the respondent-SLAO has stated that the land has not been utilised for the purpose for which it has been acquired, for the benefit of the society and for formation of the house sites and that the said land is remaining vacant, trees and plants having grown therein. 6. Referring to these aforesaid documents, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits even the possession has not been taken. Reiterating his contention and reliance placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (Supra), more particular to paragraph Nos.366.7 and 366.8, learned Senior counsel insists that the acquisition has to be held to have lapsed, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 7. Sri. K.R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5-Society seriously refuting the averments, grounds and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, extensively takes this Court through the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Division Bench this Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the earlier round of litigation raised by the very same petitioner referred to hereinabove. Pointing out to the contents of each and every order he submits that initially uncle the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner himself has in unequivocal terms pleaded before this Court regarding award having been passed, possession having been taken and the petitioner not having been given an opportunity, which contentions were adverted to by the orders of this Court negating and dismissing the challenge, the petitioner therefore cannot be permitted to reagitate the same grounds under the guise of invoking the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. He vehemently urges that the present litigation is kept alive only on account of endorsements and communications deliberately being issued by the respondent-SLAO unmindful of he being the party to the earlier proceedings and having represented with regard to the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 acquisition having been completed, award having been passed and possession having been taken in the manner known to law. He submits it was not open for the respondent-SLAO to have issued such correspondence giving rise to unwarranted litigations which is being misused by the petitioner, hence seeks for appropriate order in the matter. 8. Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA supplementing the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 would contend that total extent of land in Sy.No.1/1A is about 7 acres and 33 guntas, of which the respondent-State has acquired about 5 acres 30 guntas for the benefit of the respondent No.5- Society, while the respondent-BDA has acquired remaining extent of 1 acre and 9 guntas of land for the purpose of formation of further extension of Banashankari layout, which has not been challenged by the petitioner and acquisition made by the respondent-BDA to the said extent has attained finality. 9. Learned AGA referring to the paragraph No.3 of the statement of objection and Annexure-R3 enclosed therewith submits that as per the instruction given by the respondent- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 SLAO and the documents produced in Annexure-R3, the acquisition was completed and the consent award was passed, in which the very same petitioner himself had participated, which finds mention in the consent award. She submits that in view of the instructions and the material supplied at the time of filing of objections, it is clear that the consent award was passed to the knowledge of the petitioner, therefore the contention urged by the petitioner with regard to award not having been passed is untenable. However she hastened to add the said compensation was required to be paid by the respondent No.5-Society in terms of the agreement that had been entered into between the landowners and the respondent No.5-Society and that material not being available, the respondent-SLAO has issued the communication at Annexure- Y2 produced by the petitioner along with rejoinder. She submits there is no misleading by the respondent-SLAO inasmuch as the said Annexure-Y2 has to be read in the light of the agreement that has been entered into between the petitioner-landowners and the respondent No.5-Society. 10. Heard and perused the records. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 11. Since the grounds urged are restricted in this petition only with regard to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. It is appropriate to extract said provision: ''24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases: (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'' 12. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (Supra) while answering the questions with regard to the interpretation and implication of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 at paragraph No.366 has held as under: '' 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act d under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013: Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided, a under Section 31(1) of the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to-accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 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. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 367. Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.'' 13. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court, all that is required to be seen is whether the award has been passed within/before the time prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 and whether the possession has been taken. Suffice at this juncture to refer to the relevant portions of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigations initiated by the uncle of the petitioner as well as the petitioner himself. First of the challenges mounted against the acquisition was by the uncle of the petitioner in W.P.No.30782/1992. Paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the order dated 07.09.1993 passed in the said writ petition reads as under: 2. The main contentions advanced by the petitioner is assailing the notifications are: - That the Secretary of Ex.Serviceman House Building Co- operative Society (Fourth Respondent) had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in respect of Sy. Nos. 1/1A and 1/3 and thereafter the fourth respondent with oblique motive set acquisition proceedings in motion and that the land Acquisition Authorities have not issued, any notices in pursuance of preliminary and final notification to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed statement of objections on 25-11-1989 to the acquisition proceedings, which, it is to be stated is subsequent to the date of final notifications. The petitioner himself has averred that an - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 ward having been passed on 14-12-1990. From the averments in the memorandum of writ petition, what is to be quartered is the petitioner is aggrieved in respect of some payment out of the award amount having not been paid. As such, the contention of non-service of notice in pursuance of preliminary notification does not stand to reason. What is to be seen from the award notices issued is that the petitioner has received substantial award amounts in respect of his acquired land. 3. In the letter dated 25-11-1989 written to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and further the agreements of sale entered into with the fourth respondent as having become unenforceable. Further, the petitioner has himself agreed hat compensation may be fixed at 1.20 lakhs per acre. Relevant para reads: - Having acquiesced in the land acquisition proceedings and further having not raised any objections whatsoever regarding the acquisition proceeding as being not for public purpose and further in the absence of any colourable exercise on the part of the authorities concerned, the contentions raised by the petitioner for declaring the notification as illegal cannot he legally sustained. If really the petitioner is aggrieved of the award, the only course for him is to seek reference at Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which confers right on the petitioner under the Act to claim higher compensation. Here, in the instant case, bat eventuality would not arise since consent awards have been passed. The petitioner has not made out any justifiable grounds to compel this court to exercise its power under S.226 of the Constitution. 4. Further, it is to be noted that even though the petitioner was aware of the acquisition proceedings having been initiated in the month of November 1989, the petitioner did not assail the notification and has approached this court only in the month of October 1992 and the petitioner has not explained the delay in approaching this court by any convincible causes. 5. The petitioner has no where in his petition has averred that the exercise of powers by the land acquisition - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 authorities as being actuated with extraneous and irrelevant considerations and the same as being a colour-able exercise of power or fraud and that the same as being vitiated.'' 14. The second of the challenge to the acquisition was by the brother of the petitioner and the petitioner himself in W.P.No.35685-86/1995, paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said order are extracted hereunder: 10. In this case as already noticed, these petitions have been presented 6 years. After passing of the final notification report from the fact that the uncle of the petitioner who was the joint kathedar and unsuccessfully challenged the validity of he acquisition in writ proceedings to which reference is made above. 11. The records also disclose that the and petitioner had consented to the award. (emphasis added) 15 The third of the challenge by the petitioner himself raised in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Submissions of the learned counsel in writ petition in W.P.No.27298/2004, which was dismissed on 01.12.2008 at paragraph No.4 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder: '' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Lakshminarayan submitted that even though the lands - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 were acquired by the State, the Assistant Commissioner was not preciuded from passing orders of restoration. He submitted that in terms of the Act Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, the land granted to the petitioner requires to be restored to him by setting aside the same. Therefore irrespective of the land having been acquired by the State, he is entitled for restoration of the lands.'' 16 Observation in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 22.06.2009 in W.A.No.369/2009 by the Division Bench of this Court is also relevant which is extracted hereunder: ''… Possession of the land was taken on 21.01.1991. A notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act was issued on 7.3.1991 and possession was delivered to the 4th respondent-society on 9.11.1992.'' 17 The aforesaid orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and by the Division Bench of this Court right from the year 1993 till the order dated 22.06.2009 as extracted hereinabove would categorically indicate that the petitioner had never raised any issue with regard to award not having been passed or he not having been paid any compensation. He also not raised any issue with regard to possession not having been taken either. Whatever challenges that were raised were also negated by this Court and these orders have attained finality. 18 The subsequent challenge which was raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.36564/2012 was culmination of all the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 grounds that were raised earlier, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.05.2014, while dismissing the writ petition at paragraph No.7 has observed as under: ''7. Though the learned Senior Advocate has strongly urged the above contentions drawing sustenance from the observations and opinions expressed in the above authorities, the grounds sought to be urged are merely an enlarged and stronger version of the very grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner in earlier petitions, the seeming nuances sought to be highlighted to demonstrate that the petitioner is not precluded from urging the said grounds for consideration anew, especially with regard to circumstances that are alleged to have been glossed over earlier or maybe not presented in the right perspective, in the opinion of this court is no justification to entertain the present petition. The petitioner is precluded front bringing this petition in the face of his earlier challenge, on more than one occasion, on similar grounds.'' 19. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1517/2014, which was called upon to adjudicate the legality of the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2014, taking note of all the contentions and the pleadings that were urged by the petitioner in the previous round of litigations, juxtaposing the same in the form of a tabular column (at paragraph No.29 at internal page No.38 onwards) came to the conclusion to dismiss the writ appeal by making the following observation at paragraph No.44, which reads as under: - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 ''44. In this regard we also note that successive attempts made by the appellant to some how stall the acquisition process has resulted in respondent No.5-Society and its allottees not being able to carry on any development on the land In question although they have been already allotted. Further, on account of the successive litigation and stay orders granted by this Court, there has been delay in release of the plan although relinquishment of the land for the purpose of roads and civic amenities, has been made by respondent No.5-Society In favour of the Bengaluru Development Authority. We therefore deprecate the tendency of the appellant who has filed successive petitions before this Court which has taken precious time and that too, on the same pleas or on pleas which were available even when the earlier writ petition was filed. Further, other pleas which are not available to the appellant have been raised where no relief could be given on the said pleas. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The said cost shall be paid by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.'' 20. The aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner and the judicial pronouncements made by this Court leave no scope for the petitioner to re-agitate the matter on the purported ground of a fresh cause of action having arisen in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 as sought to be made in the present petition. In that, the contention urged by the petitioner that the award not having been passed, possession not having been taken cannot be countenanced. Even as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.366.9 of its judgment in the case of Indore - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 Development Authority (Supra), sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 does not give raise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Resultantly, petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. Having held as above, necessary to note the reasons and circumstances which appears to have embolden the petitioner to file the present petition. In that, what is also baffling and flabbergasting is the manner in which the respondent-SLAO is discharging his function, one as himself being a party-respondent in these proceedings and the other as a Special Land Acquisition Officer responding to the queries purportedly raised by the petitioner. In the statement of objection filed on behalf of the respondent-State, the Special Land Acquisition Officer namely Sri. L. Bheema Naik son of Sri. Laxman Naik filing his verifying affidavit has confirmed the veracity of the contents and averments made in the statement of objections and the documents enclosed therewith. At paragraph No.3 of the statement of objection, it is contended by of the respondent-State as under: ''It is further submitted for the aforementioned land respondent No.4 has passed consent award in the name - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 of Venkatappa, the copy of the said award is enclosed at Annexure-R3.'' 22. Further, perusal of said award produced at Annexure-R3 would indicate that the petitioner himself has participated in the award proceedings, whose name is reflected at page No.6 of the consent award. It is pointed out during the course of hearing that when the land was notified, name of the father of the petitioner was reflecting in the revenue records who is stated to have passed away in the year 1989, that is subsequent to issuance of the notification. It is also contended that the name of the petitioner was brought on revenue records subsequently, when the award notice was issued to the original khatedar apparently petitioner himself had received it, thus his name was mentioned in the award proceedings. This aspect of the matter is not refuted by the petitioner, the said consent award is admittedly passed by the respondent-SLAO as noted above the same is confirmed at paragraph No.3 of the statement of objection. 23. This being the pleading made on oath, the document heavily relied upon by the petitioner is a purported communication dated 09.02.2023 that was issued by very same - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 Special Land Acquisition Officer Sri. L. Bheema Naik, found at Annexure-Y2, relevant portion of the said document reads as under: "(ಈ ಬೆ ಕೇ ಯ ಇಂೆ ಮತು ಾಂ ಆರುವ ಾಖ"ೆಗಳನು& ಪ (ೕಸ"ಾ, *ೆಂಗಳ+ರು ದ-ಣ /ಾಲೂಕು, ಉತರಹ45 6ೋಬ4, 6ೊಸಹ45 ಾ7ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.1/1ಎ ರ 5-30 ಎ/ಗುಂ ಮತು 1/3 ರ 4-31 ಎ/ಗುಂ ಜ:ೕನು ;ಾ< ೈಕರ ಗೃಹ ;ಾ?ಣ ಸಹ@ಾರ ಸಂಘದವರ ಪರBಾ ಭೂಾDEೕನBಾದುF, ಸದ ಭೂಾDEೕನ ಜ:ೕೆ ಸಂಬಂEGದಂ/ೆ ಐIೕಪJ? ಒLMೆ ಐIೕಪJ? ಆರುತ ೆ. ಅ<? ಾರರು ಉ"ೇOತ ಮನPಯ @ೋ ರುವಂ/ೆ ಭೂ;ಾೕಕರು ಭೂಪ 6ಾರವನು& ಪೆಯಲು ಒLMೆ ಸೂQGರುವ ಕು ತು ಮತು ಭೂ;ಾೕಕ ೆ ಹಣ RಾವIGರುವ ಬೆ ಅಥBಾ TಾUVಾಲಯದ WೇವX ;ಾYರುವ ಬೆ ಕಡತದ ;ಾ[I ಲಭUPರುವJ\ಲ ಎಂಬ ;ಾ[Iಯನು& ಮೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ I4ಯಪYG ೆ". 24. Special Land Acquisition Officer who is vested with a statutory power to the extent of determination of compensation and he having passed the consent award produced by him before this Court, could not have issued a communication as found at Annexure-Y2. This Court by order dated 13.12.2024, had directed the respondent No.4-SLAO to file an affidavit with regard to ''Status of taking possession of the land in question''. In response thereof respondent No.4-SLAO has filed an affidavit dated 29.01.2025 filed on 31.01.2025 wherein at paragraph Nos.4 and 5, following is deposed: - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 '' 4. I state that pursuant to this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 13-12-2024, I along with the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru, conducted a spot Inspection of the said lands on 17.12.2024 to ascertain the present status of the lands. During the said inspection it is found that the land in question is a gated area covered with sheet-scaffolding around the entire extent on its periphery, and no Layout/ Housing sites have been formed thereon nor any development has been made by the Ex-serviceman Housing Building Co-operative Society, the Respondent No. 7 herein. 5. I state that the Petitioners/ Landowners have constructed few houses in one portion of the lands and they are in occupation and physical possession of the said lands. The land has not been utilized for the purpose for which it has been acquired i.e., for the benefit of the Society for formation of house sites. In the remaining vacant area, trees and plants have grown on the said land. Copy of the Spot Mahazar Report and Eleven photographs are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURES - R1 and R2 respectively, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.'' 25. Equally surprising are the aforesaid contents of the affidavit which is filed by the very same Special Land Acquisition Officer in furtherance to the aforesaid order. This direction dated 13.12.2024 was issued in the light of contention urged by the petitioner, regarding possession of the land not having been taken. Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be expected to be so naïve to file an affidavit of this nature. 26. This Court never expected the Special Land Acquisition Officer to find out houses are constructed or if the - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 grass and plants were grown on the acquired land; all that this Court wanted to know was whether the possession was indeed taken or not. Deliberately avoiding the query raised by this Court, respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed the misleading affidavit to this Court. There is a considerable force in submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.5- Society, the present litigation is kept boiling and brewing only in view of the unmindful endorsements and the reply being issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer upon the request made by the petitioner which run contrary to the stand taken by the very same Special Land Acquisition Officer on oath as party respondent before this Court. 27. Special Land Acquisition Office being a responsible Officer and representative of the State, who has participated in all these proceedings right from the year 1993 till date, cannot be expected to be so ignorant to issue these kind of endorsements. This clearly amounts to the said respondent- SLAO working for the cross-purposes requiring conducting of an enquiry by the Competent Authority in this regard. This Court therefore deems it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to conduct the enquiry with regard to - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 Special Land Acquisition Officer, issuing communications/endorsements and filing affidavit before this Court containing conflicting and contrary versions. A report in this regard shall be filed before this Court in a sealed cover. 28. Registry of this Court in the aforesaid circumstances to consider initiating appropriate proceedings against the concerned respondent-SLAO including but not limited to initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, in the matter. 29. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed as the same lacks merits. 30. Necessary to note, there is no detail furnished with regard to petitioner having paid the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- that was earlier imposed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1517/2014 as noted hereinabove. In view of the present petition having been filed on superfluous and vexatious grounds as noted above, petitioner shall be liable to pay further cost of Rs.1,50,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:8547 WP No. 2228 of 2022 31. Registry of this Court shall issue recovery certificates and take necessary steps to recover the aforesaid cost including the cost earlier imposed, if not paid, in accordance with law. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL