- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 960 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) AND: 1. M/S. CELEBRITY STRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO. 310, BILWAPRIYA PLATINA, 27TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR - 1, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI P SURENDER REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2. SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY, R Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND JOINT DIRECTOR FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, BMRDA OFICE, NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MITHUN KUMAR Y G., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.09.2022 IN WP No.19508/2022(LB) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The State of Karnataka is in this intra-Court appeal before us, calling in question the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19058/2022. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard, Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant, Sri.Mithun Kumar.Y.G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Yogesh D.Naik., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, argued primarily on the ground of delay and laches in approaching this Court by the petitioner in Writ Petition stated supra. He submits that, once the petitioner having voluntarily accepted the condition of relinquishment of 5% of the land in favor of respondent No.2 vide deed of relinquishment dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure-C to the Writ Petition) in terms of Notification dated 20.05.2017, now cannot turn back only on the basis of the order passed in the subsequent Writ challenging the Notification dated 20.05.2017, wherein the learned Single Judge has held that relinquishment of 5% - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 of the total land area as a condition precedent for approval of development plan violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 5. Sri.Shah, further submits that the Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the persons who are fence-sitters are not entitled for any relief even if they are similarly placed, if approach the Court after considerable delay when the order has been passed in favor of other persons. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CHAIRMAN/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VS. RAM GOPAL reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 and stressed on Paragraph No.3 of the Judgment under the heading delay in filing the Writ Petition, to contend that inordinate delay in approaching the Court calling in question the Notification dated 2017 which the petitioner has already accepted by means of executing a Relinquishment Deed in consonance with the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 Notification in favor of respondent No.2, not entitled to any relief. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent is unable to point out any plausible explanation provided in the Writ Petition for delay in approaching the Writ Court calling in question the Notification under which he has executed Relinquishment Deed accepting the Notification. 7. We are alive to the situation that similarly placed persons be considered similarly, however if they approach the Court within a reasonable point of time. In the case on hand, the petitioner has accepted the conditions prescribed under the Notification and executed a Relinquishment Deed in terms of the said Notification. Having executed the Relinquishment Deed, now the petitioner is estopped from calling in question the Notification merely on the ground of order passed in the Writ Petition filed in the year 2022 by some other petitioner, calling in question the Notification, wherein the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the relinquishment of 5% of the total land area as a condition precedent for approval of development plan violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, in the absence of any plausible explanation for delay in approaching the Writ Court and more so when the 2017 Notification has been accepted and Relinquishment Deed is executed, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief granted by this Court in W.P.No.15250/2022. 8. Our view gains support from the latest Judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in DAMOR NANABHAI MANABHAI AND OTHERS V/S. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5619 OF 2024 with SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4044 OF 2025 dated 02.12.2025 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while similarly placed persons are generally entitled to similar treatment, however this principle cannot be invoked after a prolonged delay simply because others succeeded in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 their litigation earlier. The person who remain inactive or wait for others to fight legal battles cannot wake up later to claim the same benefits, as a parity right is not a matter of right, especially when the same is hit by delay which amounts to acquiescence to the order under challenge. In the case on hand, in the teeth of the Relinquishment Deed by the petitioner in terms of the 2017 Notification, he cannot now only on the basis of certain other persons having succeeded in the subsequent case, take a U-turn and challenge the Notification to which he has acquiesced. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment, in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, at Paragraph No.22.2 has held as under: "22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13020-DB WA No. 960 of 2024 counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 9. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition on the grounds of delay and laches, on the principle, delay defeats all rights. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4