- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED SEETHAPATHI AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT LAQ, M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 009 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PODIUM BLOCK VISHWESWARAIH TOWERS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 5. SRI MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 5(A) BYAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 5(B) TO 5(E) 5(B) SRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 65 YEARS 5(C) SRI SEETHRAMAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED MAJOR 5(D) SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 66 YEARS R5(B) TO (D) ARE RESIDENTS OF VAJARAHALLI (BYYANAPALYA) UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN: 560 062 5(E) SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 55 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 ANJANAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK PIN: 560 062 6. SRI JAMDAR (DELETED V/O DT. 11.08.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHETHAN C P, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5(B-E); SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH KUMAR M S, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A.NO.5/2025; R-6 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2025) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 15/12/2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.6283/2008. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6283/2008. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The detailed facts have been taken note of by the writ Court and therefore, for the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the facts stated in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The petitioner-Society has filed the aforesaid writ petition praying to quash the order dated 07.03.2008 passed in No.RD 40 AQB 2005 by the State Government directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to denotify the schedule lands under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 5. The lands in question, along with other lands, were acquired by the State Government vide Final Notification dated 25.09.1989 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. In furtherance of the final notification, award had been passed and the same was approved by the State Government. The Government thereafter took possession of the lands and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 18.04.1991 and 16.01.1992. 6. According to the petitioner-Society, the lands bearing Sy.Nos.7/3 measuring 0.22 guntas, 8/4 measuring 3.32 acres, 16/3 measuring 2.28 acres, 17/1 measuring 0.03 guntas, 17/4 measuring 0.26 guntas and 55/4 measuring 0.051/2 guntas located at Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, were notified for acquisition and the validity of the acquisition was challenged by the private respondents in W.P.No.4944/1990. Vide order dated 18.11.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, the said writ petition came to be allowed on the ground that the petitioners were not heard in the matter as mandated under Section 5A of the Act. The learned Single Judge reserved the liberty to the authorities to proceed with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 acquisition after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law. However, the said order of the learned Single Judge was set aside vide judgment and order dated 29.01.1998 passed in W.A.No.1974/1997. The Civil Petition No.117/1998 seeking review of the order passed in the said writ appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.03.1998. 7. Once the lands got vested in the Government in pursuance to the final notification and the award passed, the legal representatives of the respondent No.5-Muniswamappa, the owner of the lands, had approached the Government for denotification of the lands from the acquisition proceedings and the Government obliged them by issuing the Notification dated 19.06.1999 for denotification of the lands in question. 8. The legal representatives of the respondent No.5 had also filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.16897- 16898/1998 (SLPs) against the judgment passed in the writ appeal and the order passed in the review petition, before the Supreme Court. However, in view of the Government's benevolence in denotifying the lands vide Notification dated 19.06.1999, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs as having - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 become infructuous inasmuch as the relief which the respondent No.5 could not get from the Court got it at the hands of the Government. 9. The petitioner-Society thereafter filed W.P.No.28841/1999 c/w W.P.No.22352/1999 before this Court challenging the Notification order dated 19.06.1999. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed as having become infructuous inasmuch as the Government made another somersault by withdrawing the Notification dated 19.06.1999 vide order dated 19.05.2000. The legal representatives of the respondent No.5 therefore filed W.P.No.18439/2000 before this Court challenging the Notification dated 19.05.2000 whereby, the earlier Notification dated 19.06.1999 denotifying the lands from the acquisition proceedings was cancelled. The said writ petition came to be allowed and the Notification dated 19.05.2000 was quashed. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner-Society to approach the State Government for taking such action relating to withdrawing the denotification of the schedule lands. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 10. In the meantime, the petitioner-Society had filed W.P.No.37448/2000 challenging the Notification dated 19.06.1999 issued by the State Government and the writ Court, vide order dated 29.07.2002, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act and further directed the State Government to reconsider the matter afresh after due notice to the beneficiaries and the land owners. 11. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.37448/2000, the petitioner-Society and the land owners had appeared before the respondent No.1-State Government and after hearing them on 15.07.2005, the matter was posted for orders. No order was passed despite lapse of 2 years and 8 months with effect from 15.07.2005. Thereafter, suddenly, vide order dated 07.03.2008, the State Government ordered for denotification of the lands in question under Section 48(1) of the Act. 12. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.03.2008, the petitioner-Society has filed the aforesaid W.P.No.6283/2008. The learned Single Judge, after considering the oscillating stand of the State Government at different points of time and also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 considering the fact that after the final notification came to be issued and award was passed, the lands got vested in the State Government, has held that there was no question of entertaining any request for denotification under Section 48(1) of the Act and set aside the order dated 07.03.2008 passed in RD No.40 AQB 2005 by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue and remanded the matter back to the competent authority to pass orders in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the writ petition. 13. Having considered the facts and the law, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require an interference by this Court. We also take note of the fact that the entire litigation has been the creation of the State Government's oscillating stand at different points of time. The State Authorities should not act in the manner they have acted in the present case. 14. Be that as it may, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, the order passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8030-DB WA No. 108 of 2025 dated 07.03.2008 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the competent authority to pass orders in accordance with law. 15. While upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the State Government to take final decision as directed by the learned Single Judge, within two months from today. 16. The petitioner-Society, the land owners and anyone who has interest or acquired interest in respect of the lands in question should be heard before taking the final decision. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2