- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56911 OF 2014 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.371, B.T.ROAD, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, HINKAL, MYSORE-570 017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570024. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 01.04.1981 MADE IN NO.PRA.BHU.SWA.1:81- 82 PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S LAND IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.¥Àæ.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.1:81-82 dated 01.04.1981 issued by the respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No. ºÉZïAiÀÄAr 82 JAL© 82 dated 29.03.1984 issued by the respondent No.1 in so far as the land bearing Sy. No.229 of Hinkal Village, Mysuru Taluk, measuring 01 Acre 05 guntas out of the total extent of 02 Acres 10 guntas. 2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the aforesaid land which was earlier notified for acquisition for formation of Vijayanagar layout, 3rd Stage, Mysuru, in terms of a preliminary notification dated 01.04.1981. The respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 No.1, vide its order dated 22.03.1984, gave its approval for the acquisition of the land. Consequently, a final notification under Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the erstwhile City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 was issued. Thereafter, a notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act, 1894’) was issued to the petitioner and a general award dated 21.04.1986 was passed determining the compensation payable at a sum of Rs.12,000/- per acre. The petitioner claims that the respondents did not pass any individual award to pay compensation pursuant to the above general award. He contends that he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the acquisition proceedings and the award that was passed. He thereafter gave a representation dated 26.09.2013 to the respondent No.3 claiming compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the aforesaid land. However, the respondents did not pay him the compensation, but the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement on 31.10.2013 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the latest RTC and the mutation extracts in respect of the land in question. The petitioner claims that he produced the above documents, but the compensation was not paid. He also asserts - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 that he is in physical possession of the property acquired and by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act, 2013’) and Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (for short, ‘the KUDA Act’), the acquisition has lapsed as compensation is not paid and the possession of the land in question is not taken over by the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and prayed that the impugned notifications be set at nought. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who contend that there is no concept of passing the individual awards after a general award is passed under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. It is claimed that after an award is passed, a notice of the award should be issued under Section 12(2) the Act, 1894 upon the land owner or the occupant, calling upon him or her to produce documents within the stipulated time to claim the compensation, following which possession of the land would be taken. It is contended that notice of the award is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 issued in the name of Sri Siddegowda, son of Sri Javaregowda and Smt.Siddamma, wife of Chikkabeeragowda. It is also contended that one Smt.Kaveramma, daughter of Sri Thimmaiah had claimed ownership of the subject land and she had offered to surrender the subject land by mutual consent and consequently, possession of the land in question was taken over on 18.05.1987 under a mahazar that was duly drawn. It is also contended that based on the consent of Smt. Kaveramma, an award was passed on 25.05.1987 determining the compensation payable at a sum of Rs.56,250/-. Later, affidavits were filed by Sri Siddegowda, son of Javaregowda and others for payment of compensation in favour of Smt. Kaveramma. Consequently, the compensation of Rs.56,250/- was paid to Smt. Kaveramma in terms of a cheque bearing No.092948 dated 18.08.1987. Smt. Kaveramma then sought for issue of a land loser certificate in order to obtain an incentive site by filing an application dated 25.06.1987. Accordingly, a certificate dated 07.07.1987 was issued to Smt. Kaveramma, pursuant to which, a site measuring 40 feet x 60 feet was allotted to Smt. Kaveramma. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the acquisition as the same has come - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 to an end. It is also contended that the question about the lapsing of the Scheme was considered by three separate Division Benches of this Court in W.A No.2106/2007 c/w W.A. No.1944/2007, W.A No.3451/2010 and W.A Nos.3654- 58/2010, and in W.A No.2900/2019, where it was held that the Scheme was implemented and did not lapse under Section 27 of the KUDA Act and also under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the assertions made in the statement of objections. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 8. The documents produced by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with statement of objections indicate that the petitioner had consented to the payment of compensation in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27690 WP No. 56911 of 2014 respect of the acquisition of the land in question to Smt. Kaveramma. The documents filed along with statement of objections establish the above fact. It is also evident that a site measuring 40' x 60' was allotted to Smt. Kaveramma. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the acquisition was without notice and that the award was also without notice to him. Under the circumstances, the impugned notifications cannot be assailed at the instance of the petitioner that too at this point in time. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA-para Nos.1 to 7 PMR –from para No.8 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43