- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9082 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: SRI. HONNEGOWDA @ AMASE GOWDA S/O. LATE. HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 523, HOSA BEEDI, HINAKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN AND CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE PRESIDENT, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE-570001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE-570001. 4. SRI.M.C.RAMESH, S/O. M.S.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, 13TH BLOCK, SBM COLONY, SRIRAMAPURA Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 2ND STAGE, MYSORE CITY-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI.J.M.ANIL KUMAR FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 R2 DELETED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 23/12/1991, BEARING ORDER NO.PRA.BHU.SWA.2/1991-92 WAS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 02.01.1992 SY. NO. 126/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 02 GUNTA OF BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a preliminary notification bearing No.¥Àæ.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.2/91-92 dated 23.12.1991 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘the KUDA Act’) as well as a final notification dated 10.12.1992 under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue a no- objection certificate in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.126/2A of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, measuring 1 acre 02 guntas. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he was the owner of land in Sy.No.126/2A of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 1 acre 02 guntas. The entire extent was proposed for acquisition by the respondent No.3 for formation of Vijayanagar 4th phase layout, in terms of a preliminary notification dated 23.12.1991. Later, a final notification was issued under Section 19 of the KUDA Act, declaring the intention of the State Government to acquire the land for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioner contends that a possession certificate dated 19.07.2001 was drawn up by the officials of the respondent No.3, wherein it was stated that the concerned owners of the respective land had handed over possession of their respective properties, which however did not bear the signature of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 1894’), evidencing the taking over of possession of the aforesaid land. (ii) The petitioner contends that as per an endorsement dated 01.02.2020, the respondent No.2 had not finalized the payment of compensation in respect of his land that was acquired. The petitioner therefore approached the respondent No.2 to drop the acquisition. He contends that he is still in possession of the aforesaid property. He contends that under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, the authorities are bound to implement the scheme within 5 years and since the same is not implemented, he is entitled for a no objection certificate from the respondent No.3, authorising him to utilise the land. (iii) He also contends that he had filed W.P.No.15192/2020 before this Court seeking redressal of his grievance and the respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein appeared before the Court and made a submission that the authorities are ready to allot alternate sites to the petitioner. The petitioner consented to the same and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.03.2023. The petitioner claims that since the purpose for which the property - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 was acquired was not utilized for that purpose and that he continued in possession, the respondent No.4 approached him and got a power of attorney executed on 10.04.2023 to enable the respondent No.4 to liaise with the respondent No.2 and receive 50% of the developed land in lieu of cash compensation. (iv) He contends that some strangers including respondent No.4 represented before the respondent No.3 and obtained a letter of allotment dated 27.04.2023 in the name of the petitioner concerning site Nos.12252, and 12253 each measuring 18 x 27 meters, site No.10655 measuring 9 x 12 meters and another site No.11310 measuring 6 X 9 meters formed in Vijayanagara, 4th phase and II stage, Mysore. Thereafter, four sale deeds dated 16.06.2023, were obtained by the respondent No.4 as power of attorney of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.4 got sale deeds dated 06.07.2023 executed in his own favour. (v) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 fraudulently got created four sale deeds dated 16.06.2023 and the consequent sale deed dated 06.07.2023. He also contends - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 that from the year 1992 till the year 2025, he is in possession of the acquired property and the respondent No.4 along with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have played fraud on the petitioner to grab the incentive sites. The petitioner is therefore before this Court again challenging the notifications under which the land in question was acquired. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that four sites are allotted by the respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner represented by respondent No.4, are illegal and unauthorised, as, such allotment was not made by the board of Mysore Urban Development Authority (henceforth referred as MUDA in short), but was by the Commissioner of MUDA. He invited the attention of the Court to a submission recorded in W.P.No.15192/2020, where the endorsement issued by the Commissioner of MUDA was agreed to be placed before the Board of MUDA for a decision. He submits that till date, the endorsement issued by the Commissioner, allotting four sites to the respondent No.4 is not placed before the Board. He thus contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have played fraud not only on the petitioner but also on MUDA and have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 manipulated the records and have conferred largesse on respondent No.4 in granting four sites as against one site that the petitioner is entitled to. He therefore contends that this is a colossal fraud committed by respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent No.3. He therefore prays that the entire process of allotment of sites in favour of respondent No.4 be reviewed. 4. (i) The writ petition is opposed by respondent No.3 who has filed a statement of objections contending that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the preliminary notification was issued in 1991 and the final notification was issued in 1992 and the writ petition is filed after almost twenty-eight years, which is hopelessly barred by time and hence, is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts in as much as the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.6461/2005 challenging the very same acquisition notifications in respect of the very same survey numbers and the said writ petition was dismissed in terms of an order dated 12.09.2006. The order passed in W.P.No.6461/2005 was upheld by the Division Bench in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 W.A.No.1732/2006, by which it was held that the scheme sanctioned by the State Government had not lapsed under Section 27 of the KUDA Act. (ii) It is contended that the petitioner suppressing the above fact had again filed W.P.No.15192/2020 and during the pendency of the proceedings, had moved the respondent No.3 for allotment of 50% of developed sites in lieu of cash compensation and had managed to obtain an official memorandum dated 27.04.2022 from the Commissioner of MUDA. This official memorandum was issued on the premise that the then compensation is not paid to the petitioner though possession was taken over on 19.07.2001. It is contended that the official memorandum dated 27.04.2022 issued by the Commissioner is based on a resolution of the Board of MUDA dated 06.11.2020. It is claimed that the resolution passed on 06.11.2020 had nothing to do with the land of the petitioner but concerned cases where the authority had utilized the land without following the process of acquisition. (iii) It is also contended that the Commissioner of MUDA had not taken into consideration the writ petition filed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 petitioner herein in W.P.No.6461/2005 and its dismissal and the consequent Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1732/2006, which was dismissed. It is contended as per the judgment passed in W.A.No.1732/2006, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an application seeking allotment of incentive sites as per the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1989 (henceforth referred to as 'the Incentive Site Rules'). Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is at the most entitled to an incentive site measuring 40 X 60, as per the Incentive Site Rules and not 12150 square feet of developed area. It is contended that it was under the aforesaid circumstances that a submission was made before this Court in W.P.No.15192/2020, that the official memorandum dated 27.04.2022 issued by the Commissioner would be placed before the Board. However, the official memorandum was not placed before the Board but the chairman of the respondent No.3 issued an unconscionable note dated 10.02.2023 followed by a communication dated 17.02.2023 to the counsel for the respondent No.2 to inform this Court that the Commissioner would implement the official memorandum dated 27.04.2022 within a time bound manner. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 Therefore, W.P.No.15192/2020 was disposed of, prescribing an outer limit of eight months for the respondent No.3 to accomplish the aforesaid task. (v) It is contended that then Commissioner of MUDA took further steps to implement the illegal official memorandum dated 27.04.2022 taking advantage of the communication dated 17.02.2023 addressed by the chairman of MUDA authority. It is further contended that taking advantage of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, a power of attorney was executed on 10.04.2023 in favour of the respondent No.4 authorizing him to obtain allotment of sites measuring 12150 square feet, as per the official memorandum of the Commissioner of MUDA dated 27.04.2022 and also authorizing him to enter into sale agreements, execute sale deeds, receive sale consideration or execute the sale deed in his own favour etc. (vi) The respondent No.3 contends that as per the power of attorney, the petitioner had agreed that the value of 12150 square feet sital area was a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and that the entire sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was paid by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 respondent No.4 to the petitioner and his family members. It is contended that the petitioner had relinquished his authority to deal with the sites that were allotted by the respondent No.3. It is thus contended that the petitioner having once received the entire sale consideration as agreed from the respondent No.4, cannot now turn around and challenge the notification and/or claim that the respondent No.3 should issue a no objection certificate permitting him to enjoy the property that were the subject matter of acquisition. (vii) It is also contended that the then Commissioner of MUDA continues to indulge in such indiscriminate decisions to allot developed sites at the ratio of 50:50, which per forced the State Government to issue a direction dated 14.03.2023 to MUDA not to allot valuable sites in favour of land losers on the ground that the compensation is not paid, without indicating the Rule/s or decision of the board as there was every possibility of putting MUDA to financial loss. Thus the State Government directed stoppage of allotment of marginal land and allotment of sites in lieu of compensation till the government framed guidelines. Despite this the then - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 Commissioner of MUDA continued to pass colourable orders for allotting sites under 50:50% scheme, which forced the state government to pass an order dated 27.10.2023 canceling the resolution of the authority dated 14.09.2020, subject No.18. The State Government by an order dated 01.07.2024 constituted a committee to enquire into the illegalities enlisted in the said communication and directed MUDA not to conduct any meetings of the board and not to take any decisions in respect of the files and not to implement any of the decisions taken by the board and not to dispose of any sites without the specific directions of the State Government. It is contended that by an order dated 23.07.2024, the State Government had constituted a one member enquiry Commission headed by Justice P.N.Desai to hold an enquiry and submit a report. It is further contended that the enquiry commission has already submitted its report to the State Government, which is yet to consider the same. (viii) Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner has lost the locus to challenge the notifications as well as the allotment of sites in favour of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 respondent No.4. However, it is contended that the allotment of sites in favour of the respondent No.4 shall be subject to the outcome of the enquiry commission. 5. (i) The respondent No.4 has also filed a statement of objections contending that after the disposal of W.P.No.15192/2020, the petitioner executed a power of attorney dated 10.04.2023 authorising him to obtain a deed of absolute sale in respect of 12150 square feet of developed sites allotted by the MUDA towards cash compensation. It is contended that the respondent No.3 then allotted four sites in favour of the petitioner vide separate allotment letters dated 27.04.2022 and thereafter, executed four sale deeds dated 16.06.2023 in favour of the petitioner represented by the respondent No.4. (ii) It is claimed that the petitioner had executed the power of attorney for consideration of a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and that he and his children and grandson had received a sum of Rs.67,00,000/- from the father of respondent No.4 and the balance sum of Rs.1,33,00,000/- was received by the petitioner. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 received the entire sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the respondent No.4. He claims that in view of the payment of the entire sale consideration to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 used the power of attorney dated 10.04.2023 and executed a sale deed dated 06.07.2023 in his own name. He claims that the petitioner and his family members have entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 12.04.2022 with one K.L.Sathisha to sell the aforesaid sites for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and had received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and that K.L.Sathisha has filed O.S.No.1144/2022 for recovery of the said amount together with interest. (iii) It is also contended that the petitioner and his family members have entered into an agreement of sale dated 01.08.2018 to sell the land in Sy.No.126/2A in favour of one Muddaiah for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,23,00,000/- and had executed a power of attorney dated 04.09.2018 in favour of Muddaiah. The said Muddaiah also filed a suit in O.S.No.332/2021 against the petitioner and his family members for a declaration that the power of attorney dated - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 04.09.2018 is binding on the petitioner and his family members and to declare the cancellation of GPA dated 04.09.2018 is illegal. It is contended that the petitioner having sold 12150 square feet of developed land for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- is estopped in law in contending to the contrary and making unwarranted allegations against the respondent No.4. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 reiterated the above submissions and submitted the petitioner is not honest before the Courts and has deliberately suppressed material information. They also contend that the petitioner has no subsisting locus standi to challenge the notification and also the allotment of sites. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 9. The petitioner being the owner of land in Sy.No.126/2A of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 1 acre 02 guntas unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition of the aforesaid land before this Court in W.P.No.6461/2005, which was thereafter upheld by the division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1732/2006. The Division Bench of this Court, granted reliefs to the petitioner only as regards allotment of an incentive site under the Incentive Site Rules. It appears that the petitioner thereafter forged an alliance with the Commissioner of MUDA and managed to obtain allotment of 12150 square feet of developed land, which amounted to 50% of the area of the acquired land. The scheme of allotting 50% developed land was not applicable to the case on hand but was applicable to only those cases where the respondent No.3 had utilised land without acquisition. The Commissioner of MUDA misused his official position in allotting the sites to the petitioner without placing the same before the board of the MUDA authority. It also appears that the Commissioner of MUDA, unmindful of the consequences, had proceeded to executed a sale deed in respect of 12150 square feet in favour of the petitioner at the behest of the respondent No.4. The - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 petitioner who had unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition before this Court again filed W.P.No.15192/2020, where this Court noticed that the Commissioner of MUDA had unauthorizedly conveyed 12150 square feet of developed land in the name of the petitioner at the instance of the respondent No.4 and recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the authority, who submitted that the same would be placed before the board for approval. The chairman of MUDA seems to be hand in glove as he issued a note dated 10.02.2023 stating that the unconscionable allotment made by Commissioner of MUDA dated 27.04.2022 would be implemented. As the matter now stands the petitioner has executed a power of attorney in favour of the respondent No.4 and has purportedly received entire agreed consideration of Rs,2,00,00,000/- in respect of 12150 square feet that was purportedly allotted by the Commissioner of MUDA, though what he was entitled to was an incentive site measuring 40’ x 60’ under the Incentive Site Rules. As such, the petitioner has lost all his interest to even claim the incentive site as he has already received consideration from the respondent No.4, which is evident from an affidavit filed by the petitioner, which discloses that a sum of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 Rs.2,00,00,000/- was paid by the respondent No.4 in the following manner: I OVERVIEW OF CONSIDERATION AS PER ALLEGED GPA:- 1. Total Consideration: Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) 2. Advance Consideration: Rs.67,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty- Seven Lakhs). 3. Total Balance Consideration Received on Execution of GPA: Rs.1,33,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty-Three Lakhs Only). II. DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED AS PER GPA A. Advance Payments (From 05.05.2022 to 18.03.2023): These amounts were drawn from Karnataka Bank, Saraswatipuram Branch Mysuru (Account of Sri.M.S.Chandrashekhar, who is the father of the GPA Holder) prior to the GPA and distributed to the petitioner's family members as per alleged GPA:- Sl. No Date of Payment Mode of Payment Name of the Recipient Relationship to Petitioner Amount (Rs.) 1 05.05.2022 Cash Honnegowda (petitioner) Self 30,00,000/- 2 05.05.2022 Cheque No.389162 Manju Son 5,00,000/- 3 05.05.2022 Cheque No. 389163 Basavaraju Son 5,00,000/- 4 05.05.2022 Cheque No. 389164 Harish Grandson 5,00,000/- 5 05.05.2022 Cheque No.389165 Honnegowda (petitioner ) Self 5,00,000/- - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 6 16.08.2022 Cheque No.077302 Harish Grandson 5,00,000/- 7 16.08.2022 Cheque No.077303 Manju Son 5,00,000/- 8 16.08.2022 Cheque No.077304 Basavaraju Son 5,00,000/- 9 18.03.2023 Cash Honnegowda(petitioner) Self 2,00,000/- SUB TOTAL 67,00,000/- B. Final Settlement Payments (Paid on Date of Execution as per GPA): Paid directly to the Petitioner via Karnataka Bank, Saraswatipuram Branch, Mysuru; Sl. No. Date of Payment Mode of Payment/ Cheque No. Name of the Payee/Recipient Amount(Rs.) 1. 10.04.2023 Cheque No.893063 Honnegowda (Petitioner) 10,03,00,000/- 2. 10.04.2023 Cheque No.893064 Honnegowda (Petitioner) 30,00,000/- SUB TOTAL 1,33,00,000/- 10. As regards the allotment of sites by the authority in favour of the petitioner, as stated earlier, the allotment could not confer any right on the respondent No.4 unless the same is made by the Board of MUDA and not the Commissioner of MUDA. Now that the above issues are under scrutiny by the enquiry commission, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of, denying the reliefs sought for by the petitioner and at the same time holding that any allotment made and conveyance - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 executed in favour of the petitioner shall be subject to the acceptance of the report submitted by the enquiry commission. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, denying the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. However, the allotment of 12150 square feet bearing site Nos.12252, 12253, 10655 and 11310 in Vijayanagar, 4th stage, II phase, Mysore, by the Commissioner of the authority is subject to the outcome of the enquiry commission. Neither the petitioner/his legal heirs nor the respondent No.4 shall encumber, alienate or transfer the said sites, until the report of the enquiry commission is considered by the State Government. The respondent No.1 shall issue appropriate directions to the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration not to entertain any testamentary or non testamentary documents of conveyance in respect of any properties of MUDA given as compensation to land losers. 12. It is open for the authority to make use of land in Sy.No.126/1A of Basavanahalli Village, for the purpose of Vijanayanagara, 4th Stage, II Phase, Layout. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27916 WP No. 9082 of 2025 13. In view of the apparent abuse of power by the Commissioner of MUDA, it is essential to monitor the further proceedings at the level of respondent No.1 so as to ensure that rule of Law prevails and the culprits are brought to book. Hence, list on 16.08.2026 to pass further orders, if required. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20