- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.57972 OF 2016 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: SRI EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, R/O. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570005. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.07.1997 BEARING NO.LAQ(2) C.R. 42/1997-98 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 AS AT ANNEXURE-B & FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 NO.NAHAHI:204.MYHAPRA 2000 DATED 14.02.2001 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PORTION OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.127/4 MEASURING 0.28 GUNTAS SITUATE AT YANDHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, AS LAPSED IN VIEW OF SECTION 24(2) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, AND THAT THERE IS NO VESTING OF THE SAID PETITIONER’S LAND AND IT IS FREE FROM ACQUISITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 to declare the acquisition proceedings initiated under the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997 (Annexure-B) followed by final notification dated 14.02.2001 (Annexure- C) insofar it relates to the petitioner’s land bearing Sy. No.127/4 measuring 0.28 guntas situated at Yandhalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk (schedule property) have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘2013, Act’ for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondents-MUDA. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon Section 24 (2) of the 2013, Act submits, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have failed to take physical possession of the land, and petitioner has not received any compensation, though the award was passed on 31.01.2003, more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is further submitted that since the respondents have not taken possession of the land even as on today, and more than 13 years have lapsed from the date of award, the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s land have lapsed as envisaged under Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act. 4. Learned counsel for the MUDA places reliance upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Ramareddy Vs. State of Karnataka, Urban - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 Development Department, represented by Secretary and others1 (L. Ramareddy) to contend that Section 24 does not fall within its scope, nor does it apply to the acquisitions initiated under any other enactment, in particular the State Enactments. He submits that the Division Bench has held that Section 24 (2) of 2013, Act would not be applicable to Special enactments, such as the MUDA Act. 5. He submits that the present petition is a second round of litigation, seeking to reopen issues already settled in the earlier proceedings wherein the petitioner had challenged the preliminary and final notifications. In the earlier W.P. No.4874/2006, this Court observed that the award was passed in the year 2003, possession had been taken, and the layout had already been formed by the respondents. Further, it was held that the land had vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances, and the contention that the land had not 1 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3435 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired was rejected. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed W.A. No.16496/2011, which came to be dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.36836/2012, which also came to be dismissed on 01.02.2013. Having pursued the matter up to the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot now, in a second round of litigation, contend afresh that possession was not taken. The petitioner is not entitled to reopen proceedings that have already attained finality, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The preliminary notification came to be issued on 15.07.1997, followed by final notification on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 14.02.2001. The award was passed on 31.01.2003 and possession was taken on 06.03.2004, for which a possession certificate was issued on 06.12.2005. It is thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.4874/2006. This Court, in paragraph Nos.14 and 16, held as under: “14. Even otherwise, the matter when considered on merits would not entitle the petitioner any relief. In the instant case, possession of the land has been taken on 6/3/2004 and notification under Section 16(2) has been issued on 6/12/2005 and thereafter, it is published on 12/1/2006. In the year 2006, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in which there is an interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid dates, the petitioner cannot contend that there is no developmental activity on the land in question. The decision of the Apex Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries, squarely applies, since the petitioner who has lost possession of the land and the same having vested with the State Government, free from all encumbrances, cannot seek restitution of the same on the ground that the same is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. x x x - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 16. Infact, in the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the lands were notified in the final notification. The acquisition was upheld and subsequently, relief was given to certain land owners and site owners, based on criteria enumerated by this Court having regard to the fact that if the layout was not formed in a particular survey number, the continuation of acquisition for the purpose of parks or play ground would not be justified. The Apex Court held that in respect of isolated pockets where acquisition has been upheld but having no contiguity and was a self contained layout, could be excluded from acquisition. In the instant case, having regard to the sketch that has been produced by the petitioner at Annexure 'J' as well as the sketch which has been produced by counsel for respondents 2. and 3 during the course of submission, it cannot be held that the petitioner's land is an isolated pocket or that there is no access to his lands. Infact, on the east of the petitioner's land, there is Sy.No.82, from which, there is an access. The lands surrounding the land in question are also utilised for the purpose of housing layout and not for any different purpose. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.” (emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 8. It is a categorical finding that the possession of the land was taken on 06.03.2004. The same came to be upheld in writ appeal and SLP. The petitioner is now merely reiterating and attempting to reopen the very same issue, which was urged in the earlier round of litigation, contending that Section 24 (2) of 2013, Act applies as possession of the land has not been taken from the date of award. To support the contention of the petitioner, he places reliance upon the photographs and the tax paid receipts annexed to the petition. 9. Though this contention has already been rejected in the earlier round of litigation, wherein it was held that the possession had been taken, the petitioner now seeks to rely on Section 24(2) of the 2013, Act. However, this Court in the case of L. Ramareddy has clearly held at paragraph Nos.49 and 50 as under: “49. In the circumstances, it is concluded and held that Section 24 does not take within its scope nor does it apply to acquisitions which have been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 initiated under the provisions of any other enactment particularly, State enactment, such as, BDA Act. The said Section is restricted to only those acquisitions which have been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 only. Subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned under sub- section (2) of Section 24, the land owner would be entitled to the deeming provision regarding lapse of acquisition and not otherwise. 50. It is further held, with respect, that the order in Chikkathayamma and other orders which have followed the said case, having regard to the dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munithimmaiah, Bondu Ramaswamy, Offshore Holdings Private Limited, are per incuriam and not applicable as binding precedent in the present case. Further, most of the decisions referred to above have granted relief on the basis of factual determination as per sub-section 2 of Section 24 and without considering the question of law which arises in these cases. Further, in some cases, the petitioners have themselves not pressed sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act. Even then, relief has been granted on a determination made on facts and by holding that there has been abandonment of acquisition/lapse of acquisition.” (Emphasis supplied) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46804 WP No. 57972 of 2016 10. In light of the conclusion of the earlier proceedings, the petitioner cannot reiterate the same contention on the ground that Section 24 (2) of 2013, Act has to be made applicable, moreover, when the Division Bench in the case of L. Ramareddy has expressly held that Section 24 (2) has no application to acquisitions under special enactments. The petitioner has made out no grounds for interference and accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19