- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1132 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI THIMME GOWDA, SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. T. SHARATH KUMAR, S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT UGRANAPURADDADODDI, OPP. SHANTHI COLLEGE, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. 2. SRI THIMME GOWDA, S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT UGRANAPURADDADODDI, OPP. SHANTHI COLLEGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 3. SRI M. T. PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, FORT MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. SRI THIMME GOWDA, SINCE DECEASED AND REP. BY HIS LRS. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 4. SHANKARA, S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT UGRANAPURAD, WARD NO. 5, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 5. SRI M. K. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE KALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, FORT MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 6. SRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE CHIKKA VENKTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT URGAANARA DODDI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 7. SRI MADHU, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS. NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O LATE MADHU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT UGRANAPURADA DODDI, SETTAHALLI, MALVALLI MANDYA-571 430. 8. SRI MALLE GOWDA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY ITS LRS. NAGESH RAO, S/O LATE MALLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT UGRANAPURADA DODDI, MALVALLI, MANDYA-571 430. 9. SRI B NAGARAJA, S/O LATE BOMME GOWDA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT URGANAPURADA DODDI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 10(a) SRI LINGARAJU, SINCE DECEASED REP.BY HIS LR. SRI SHIVAKUMAR.L, S/O LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WARD NO.5, UGRANAPURADADDODI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 11. SRI MALLIKARJUNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. SINDHU ARJUN MM, D/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 720, 2ND CROSS K.R. ROAD, NEAR SASTRY'S BAKERY, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 050. 12. SRI NAGARAJU, S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT URGAANARA DODDI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 13. SRI MADAPPA, S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT URGAANARA DODDI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 14. SRI KRISHNASWAMY, SO LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 FORT, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 15. SRI DODDA GANDU, S/O LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT URGAANARA DODDI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 16. SRI M.G. CHANNA VEERAIAH, S/O LATE GURU NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KOTE, MALVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 17. SRI NANJAIAH, S/O LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT URGAANARA DODDI, MALVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVACHARAN R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VI0DHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401. 4. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, MALAVALLI TOWN, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3; SRI SHARANJITH SHETTY.K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.37283/2016 ii)SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 11/03/2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.37283/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT iii)PASS SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 448 days in filing the appeal is condoned. IA No.2/2025 to bring the LRs of deceased appellant No.10 is also allowed as it is not opposed by any party. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of Writ Petition No.37283/2016 [LA-RES] dated 11.03.2024, by the learned Single Judge, the appellants [petitioners] are before this Court in this intra - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 3. The grievance of the appellants is that their agricultural lands totally measuring 33 acres 7.5 guntas, were acquired by a Preliminary Notification dated 23.07.1976 and Final Notification dated 05.07.1982 under the provisions of The Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 [the Act]. Challenging the said acquisition, the petitioners had approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.37331-333/1982; Writ Petition Nos. 38122-123/1982; Writ Petition No.4039/1982; and Writ Petition No. 40180/1982. By order dated 04.09.1987, this Court dismissed the writ petitions upholding the acquisition. 4. Thereafter, an award was passed on 03.10.1989, which was again challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6852/1990 and Writ Petition Nos.10144-151/1989. This Court, again, dismissed the writ petitions rejecting the contention that the awards were illegal by order dated 04.06.1998. These orders in the Writ Petitions have attained finality, as they were not carried further. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 5. The petitioners once again, approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.21177-21193/2012 seeking for a declaration that the lands of the petitioners, which were notified for acquisition from amongst 33 acres 7.5 guntas had lapsed and acquisition has been rendered void. By an order dated 11.12.2013, this Court disposed the same, albeit, with directions that each of the petitioners be allotted a site measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft., on the basis of the submissions by the respondents therein that such allotments could be made. It was observed in para 4 of the said order as below: "4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners however, were not satisfied with the offer and were inclined to seek sites of larger dimensions in order to give up their claim and give a quietus to the proceedings. In the interest of justice however, since the petitioners have lost their valuable lands and it is not also on record that they have received compensation in respect of the lands so acquired, either by volition or default, it is not unjust in the petitioners being conferred such a benefit by the respondents providing each of them a site measuring 30' X 40'." Thus, challenge to the acquisition on the ground that it had lapsed was not accepted by the Court. The said order was carried in Writ Appeal Nos.279-295/2014 and the same came to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 6. Subsequently, the petitioners, once again, approached this Court in Writ Petition No.37283/2016 contending that even after issuance of the Final Notification in the year 1982, the respondents have not taken any steps to implement the entire scheme either partially or substantially and they have failed to allot any sites to the weaker sections of the society, for which purpose, the lands were acquired. In other words, the respondents have abandoned the project and the entire acquired land is lying vacant for more than 50 years. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the petitioner's ground that the award was beyond the period of 02 years prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act [the Act of 1894], was negated in an earlier challenge before this Court. Impugning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the award was passed beyond the period of 02 years as prescribed under Section 11A of the 1894 Act, and as such, the appellants are entitled to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that, when the lands acquired is unutilized and the scheme having been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 abandoned, the proceedings are lapsed in accordance with Section 24 (1) and (2) and Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 [the Act of 2013]. He submits that, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority V. Manoharlal and others1. He submits that no compensation has been paid in respect of the acquisition of the lands belonging to the appellants and the respondents have abandoned the project. 8. The Apex court, in the case of Indore Development Authority referred supra, has held in para 366.3 as below: "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.” 1 2020 (8) SCC 129 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 Thus, it is clear that the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, require both the conditions to be complied. 9. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the Preliminary as well as Final Notifications have been issued and the possession of the lands have been taken by the respondents. So also, the compensation as per the award has been received by the petitioners. This aspect is noted by this Court in the order dated 11.12.2013, in Writ Petition Nos. 21177-21193 of 2012, whereby, the petitioners were ordered to be allotted a site measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. Further, Annexure-K, an endorsement issued by the District Treasury, Mandya, dated 06.04.2017, shows that the award amount was deposited by the respondents and the same has also been withdrawn by the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the twin conditions which are essential for an acquired land to lapse are not satisfied. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in not applying the provisions of the Act of 2013, cannot be accepted. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36414-DB WA No. 1132 of 2025 10. It is pertinent to note that these appellants had admitted before this Court in an earlier proceedings [Writ Petition Nos. 21177-21193 of 2012] that the possession had been taken and the compensation has been awarded. Therefore, the argument that the compensation has not been received by the appellants is not available to them. 11. Therefore, abandoning the scheme to provide sites to the weaker sections of the society cannot be a ground to urge that the acquisition of the land has lapsed. In view of the above, the appeal is bereft of any merits and as such, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48