- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 1471 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: 1. M.NARAYANAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.192, GYNANABHARATHI ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. 2. M.MOHAN SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.192, GNANABHARATHI ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDAN.B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. 4. THE BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.6 LAKSHMI SADAN, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5. SMT. DAKSHYANI WIFE OF LATE M.SEEBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.192, GYNANABHARATHI ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. 6. KUM.RAMYA DAUGHTER OF LATE M.SEEBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.192, GYNANABHARATHI ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. 7. SMT. SHANTAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, WIFE OF KALAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.293, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072. 8. BETTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 SON OF LATE SANNA BELLAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.291, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072. 9. B.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF LATE SANNA BELLAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.291, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CF INSUFFICIENT/SUFFICIENT APPEAL IS IN TIME/BARRED BY TIMETHE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED OFFICE OBJECTIONS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 21.08.2024 passed in WP.No.5201/2017 (LA-BDA). This is the third round of litigation by the appellants in respect of the land in question. The appellants’ land was acquired way back in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 1985, for which the preliminary notification was issued on 15.07.1982 and the final notification was issued on 16.08.1985. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred as to “the BDA”) had also deposited the compensation soon after the final notification. 2. Challenging the acquisition proceedings, the mother of the appellants had filed WP.No.27671/2000. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed with the finding that possession of the property was taken by the BDA in accordance with the law and the Court did not find any error in the acquisition proceedings, thus, the acquisition proceedings were upheld. 3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.27671/2000, the appellants filed WA.No.2945/2004. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed. 4. The challenge made to the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2945/2004, in Civil - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 Appeal No.175/2009, also met the same fate. The Supreme Court while dismissing the civil appeal, observed as under: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and the order passed in the writ petition and other materials on record. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court as we find that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay holding that the preliminary notification acquiring the land in question including the lands of the appellants was issued on 15th July, 1982 and the final notification was issued on 16th August, 1985 and the award was passed on 12th May, 1998 and possession of the land in question was taken over on 30th June, 1998, and subsequent to that the writ petition was filed in the year 2000. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Interim order passed by this Court on 4.3.2005 stands vacated.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 5. The appellants did not stop at the civil appeal stage, they also filed a review petition before the Supreme Court being Review Petition (Civil) No.420/2009 in Civil Appeal No.175/2009. The review petition came to be dismissed by the order dated 09.09.2009. 6. Despite the acquisition proceedings having been upheld by the Supreme Court, the State Government, for reasons best known to it, de-notified a portion of the appellants’ land and after sometime the said order de- notifying the land was withdrawn. 7. This de-notification and withdrawal of the notification created a second round of litigation. The petitioners filed WP.No.4243/2009 wherein they challenged the notification for withdrawing the de-notification of the land. Writ Appeal Nos.1642-46/2009 came to be dismissed. Thereafter, SLP (Civil) Nos.14930-34/2009, WP.Nos.34023-27/2009, WP.Nos.27537-38/2012 and Review Petition Nos.2893- 94/2016 all came to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 8. The learned Single Judge, in the judgment dated 20.04.2009 passed in WP.No.4243/2009 challenging the withdrawal of de-notification of the land, held as under: “The aforementioned facts clearly reveal that the petitioners have lost possession of the land in the year 1988 itself and therefore, their prayer for denotifying the land in question to an extent of 5 acres 13 guntas cannot be petitioners being the considered. Further, the unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition proceedings before this Court and the Apex Court in an earlier round of litigation and have suffered series of orders, once again approached this Court by raising almost very grounds as were raised in the earlier round of litigation. Petitioners cannot be allowed to reopen the very issues after having lost their case upto the Apex Court. As aforementioned, the Apex Court has also specifically ruled that the possession is taken by BDA on 30th of June 1988. Hence, in view of the vesting of the land in favour of 2nd respondent-Authority, any unauthorized or illegal construction which might have come up in the acquired land cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners for contending that they are in possession of the acquired lands. In this regard the contention - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 of the respondents that the constructions have come up subsequent to the interim order granted by the Courts in the earlier round of litigation, assumes importance.” 9. The aforesaid judgment and findings have attained finality upto the Supreme Court. 10. We fail to understand how the petitioners can undertake a fourth round by filing this petition on the specious ground that the BDA did not take possession, especially when the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench and the Supreme Court have all recorded that the BDA had taken possession of the land way back in 1988 itself. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the possession is still with them. However, in earlier rounds of litigation, it had been concurrently held that possession had been taken over by the BDA, the appellants possession, if any, would be nothing but illegal possession and an encroachment over the land of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45504-DB WA No. 1471 of 2024 BDA, for which the BDA would be entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with the law to remove such unauthorized possession and encroachment over the land. 12. The present writ petition and the writ appeal are barred by the principle of res judicata and even otherwise when the Supreme Court has held, as extracted above, that the possession was taken way back in 1988, this Court cannot record a different finding than that recorded by the Supreme Court regarding the possession. Except for the issue of possession, no other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, and therefore we have no hesitation in dismissing this writ appeal which is hereby dismissed. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA