- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 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.596/2023 (LA-KHB) BETWEEN: 1. S. MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SANJEEVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.765/B4, 5TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, L N COLONY YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560022. 2. B.T. BHARATHI D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O 80C, GATE NO.7 RAILWAY OFFICERS COLONY SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560009. 3. M. NAGARAJ S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O NO.1150, 6TH CROSS 3RD MAIN, K N EXTENSION YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560022. 4. M.N. YESHWANTHA S/O M.N. RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO.1150, 5TH CROSS ROAD Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 3RD MAIN ROAD K N EXTENSION BENGALURU-560022. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.,) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009 REP. BY HOUSING COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/04/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.22755/2022 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22755/2022 (LA-KHB). 2. Sri.Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the land in question has been acquired during the years 1990-92 and the original landowner, by suppressing the fact that he has sold the property in favour of the appellants, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.50185/2014 wherein the learned Single Judge declared that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed. Being aggrieved, the Karnataka Housing Board preferred an appeal wherein the parties entered into an illegal compromise and the compensation was paid by suppressing the fact that the appellants were the owners - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 of the property in question on the date of passing of the order by the Division Bench. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the said fact and dismissed the writ petition by granting liberty to institute a suit. It is further submitted that no award has been passed in favour of the appellants and hence, the acquisition ought to have been quashed on the said ground itself. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3-Karnataka Housing Board and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and seek to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and perused the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 5. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification dated 23.06.1990 and the final notification dated 30.05.1992 insofar as site Nos.76, 79 to 82, 84 to 86, claiming to be formed in 38 guntas of the land in Sy.No.20/8 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk on the ground that the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is to be noticed that Sri.H.Venkatesha Murthy and others filed W.P.No.50185/2014 seeking prayer to quash the preliminary notification dated 23.06.1990 and the final notification dated 30.05.1992 pertaining to the land measuring 1 acre 0.8-15.68 guntas in Sy.No.20/8 of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 Valagerahalli Village which is the subject matter of the present appeal. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 03.08.2015 holding that the acquisition deemed to have been lapsed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 challenged the said order in W.A.Nos.2632- 2633/2015. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 29.10.2015 recorded the settlement and disposed of the appeal, wherein it was agreed that 49 guntas and 11 guntas shall be relinquished in favour of the appellants- Karnataka Housing Board by the landowners on receipt of the compensation and the authorities have agreed to pay certain compensation. The contention of the appellants herein that they have purchased the site from the Karnataka Minorities Social Welfare Housing Society and as on the date of entering into a settlement by the earlier owner before the Division Bench, they were not having any right over the subject matter of the property. The learned Single Judge has considered the said issue in paragraph 4(e) and recorded a finding with regard to fraud - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 played and granted liberty to the appellants to institute a suit. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. It is to be noticed that the writ appeal relating to the same property came to be disposed of on 29.10.2015. The present appellants claiming to be owners of the very same property which was the subject matter of the earlier proceedings, have filed the writ petition in the year 2022 and on the ground of delay and laches also, no relief can be granted in this appeal. 7. The issue with regard to the ownership of the subject matter of the appeal is required to be adjudicated in a duly instituted suit by either of the parties. This Court cannot come to the conclusion that the appellants were the owners of the property which is the subject matter of the acquisition. The learned Single Judge, also taking note of the decision in the case of SHIV KUMAR AND - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB W.A. No.596/2023 ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1 and other decisions, held that the petitioner lacks locus standi to question the acquisition. We do not find any error in the said finding. The appellants have not made any good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 1 (2019) 10 SCC 229