- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.35749 OF 2024 (LA-KHB) BETWEEN: SRI ESHWARACHARI S/O. LATE CHIKKADODDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17/24, 3RD MAIN, SHAKAMBARINAGAR, J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MARILINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMEBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 CAUVERY BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO AWARD 40% OF THE DEVELOPED LAND TOWARDS COMPENSATION ON A PROPORTIONATE SHARE AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDERS DATED 16.11.2024 ANYWHERE OF THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-Z AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation to award 40% of the developed land towards compensation on a proportionate share, as per the Government Order dated 02.12.2010. He further seeks to quash the committee resolution dated 01.06.2022 and the endorsement dated 13.06.2023 and 04.12.2024, whereby his claim for developed land was rejected, and prays for consequential reliefs including costs. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 2. Facts of the case: The petitioner claims ownership over land bearing Sy.No.120/2 measuring 20 guntas situated in Hinnakki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District (‘petition property’ for short), purchased under a registered sale Deed dated 28.06.1982. The petition property was notified for acquisition by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 01.04.2005, followed by a final notification under Section 6(1) on 02.11.2006. 3. A consent award was passed on 10.07.2008, fixing compensation of `34,00,000/- per acre, and awarding `16,15,000/- for 19 guntas (1 gunta clarified as karab land). The petitioner did not withdraw the compensation, asserting entitlement to developed land instead, relying on the Government's policy decision dated 02.12.2010, which provided for allotment of 40% of the developed land in Arkavathi Layout to the landowners whose land were acquired. He made several - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 representations from 2015 to 2024, seeking developed land in lieu of compensation. The KHB, however, issued an endorsement on 09.02.2022 stating that the award amount had been deposited in O.S.No.792/2008 before Civil Court, Anekal and denied consideration of his claim for developed land. 4. The petitioner initially filed W.P.No.8240/2023, wherein this Court disposed of the writ petition on 14.07.2023, reserving liberty to challenge the KHB's endorsement dated 13.06.2023. Subsequently, he filed W.P.No.16967/2023 and by an order dated 24.10.2024, this Court directed respondent No.3 to consider his representations dated 22.04.2022 and 21.05.2022 within four months. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 16.11.2024, but the KHB again rejected his claim through an endorsement dated 04.12.2024, reiterating the committee's resolution dated 01.06.2022, which proposed allotment of only 6 X 9 meters site instead of 40% developed land. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure-J) entitled landowners to 40% of the developed land instead of cash compensation. The respondents suppressed this order and relied upon their internal communication, which are contrary to the policy decision of the Government. It is submitted that the petition property remains vacant and undeveloped, and hence denial of developed land on the ground of unavailability is arbitrary. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to refund the awarded amount with interest as permitted in similar cases, to secure developed land. 6. The respondents rejected the petitioner's claim vide endorsement dated 09.02.2022, stating that the compensation was determined and deposited in the Court, thereby closing his entitlement under the award. The committee's resolution dated 13.06.2023 and the endorsement dated 04.12.2024 reiterated that no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 developed land was available, and the petitioner is only eligible for compensatory site measuring 6 X 9 meters. The petitioner did not challenge the earlier endorsement of 2022, instead he kept on submitting repetitive representation on the same subject, thereby rendering the subsequent writ petition unsustainable. 7. From the records, it is evident that the petitioner's claim for developed land was rejected by the KHB as early as 09.02.2022, and that order has attained finality since it was never challenged. The petitioner's subsequent representation and fresh writ petition is only to re-agitate the same claim without assailing the original rejection. This Court finds that the endorsement dated 13.06.2023 and 04.12.2024 are merely reiteration of the earlier decision, and therefore, no fresh cause of action arises. The petitioner has not established any legal right to seek reconsideration of the same issue, not shown any violation of statutory duty warranting a mandamus. For the foregoing reason, this Court holds that no grounds are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43350 WP No. 35749 of 2024 made out to issue any direction to the respondents as sought. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2