- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 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. 50867 OF 2016 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHADEVU S/O LATE SRI HONNE GOWDA, AGED 61 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O SRI. MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. SMT. SUMITRA D/O SRI MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 4. SMT. VEENA D/O SRI MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 5. SMT. MAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI HONNE GOWDA, AGED 71 YEARS, 6. SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O LATE SRI HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 7. SMT. JAVARAMMA W/O SRI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 8. SRI. H.K. SHASHIKUMAR S/O SRI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 9. SMT SHASHIKALA D/O SRI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 10. SRI. MALLESHA S/O SRI LATE HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 11. SMT. SUNANDA W/O SRI MALLESHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 12. SRI. H.M. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. MALLESHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 13. SMT. SARASWATHI D/O SRI MALLESHA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 14. SMT. YASHODA W/O LATE SRI SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 15. SMT. PADMAVATHI D/O LATE SRI SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 16. SMT. BHAGYAVATHI D/O LATE SRI SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 17. KUM. LIKHITHA @ SHIVAMMA D/O LATE SRI SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 18. SRI CHIKKAMALLU S/O LATE SRI HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 19. SMT. MANJULA W/O SRI CHIKKAMALLU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 20. KUM. MEGHANA D/O SRI CHIKKAMALLU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.71, HINKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570001. THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI B.S. THULASIRAMU S/O SRI. B. SIDDARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, CHADURANGA ROAD, E & F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNAGAR, MYSURU-570022 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 17.01.1992 BEARING NO.PRA.BOO.SWA.3/91-92 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B) AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 20.01.1993 BEARING NO.VA.NA.HE 883 MIB 92 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C) ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS HAVE LAPSED. 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 petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.¥Àæ¨sÀƸÁé 3/91-92 dated 17.01.1992 published by the respondent No.2 and the final notification bearing No.ªÀ£À» 883 JAL© 92 dated 20.01.1993 issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.303/2C of Hinkal village, Kasaba hobli, Mysuru Taluk, measuring 34 guntas. 2(i). The petitioners contended that they are the legal representatives of Sri Honnegowda, who was the owner of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 land bearing Sy. No.303/2C of Hinkal village. A preliminary notification dated 17.01.1992 was notified by the respondent No.2 proposing to acquire the land bearing Sy. No.303/2C of Hinkal village amongst other lands for the purpose of formation of Vijayanagar 4th Stage Phase 1 and Phase 3 layout. Following this, a final notification dated 20.01.1993 was published by the respondent No.1. A notification under section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the L.A Act, 1894’) was published by the respondent No.3 on 06.08.1994. However, the land bearing Sy. No.303/2C was not mentioned in the said notification issued under Section 16(2) of the L.A Act, 1894. The petitioners contend that an award was passed on 29.05.2000 and compensation was paid by the respondents. (ii). The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 - Mysore Urban Development Authority prepared a unilateral possession letter dated 27.03.2000 which did not contain the signatures of the petitioners. Therefore, they contended that the physical possession of the subject land is not taken by the respondents. The petitioners therefore contend that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act, 2013’), the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that a perusal of the notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act, 1894 referred supra shows that possession of the land bearing Sy. No.303/2C of Hinkal village was not taken although an award was passed and compensation was paid. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are in possession of the said land and hence, the acquisition of the subject land for the purpose of formation of Vijayanagar 4th Stage Phase 1 and Phase 3 layout does not serve any purpose but has lapsed. 4(i). The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who contend that the petitioners are not entitled to seek for a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as it is not applicable to acquisition under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the KUDA Act, 1987’). It is contended that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the order dated 02.01.2018 passed by a coordinate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 Bench of this Court in W.P No.60045/2014. It is also contended that the petitioners have filed this petition in the year 2016 challenging the preliminary notification dated 20.01.1993 and there is no explanation for the delay and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of a power of attorney holder. Reference is made to the power of attorney, where it is stated that the petitioners had entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the land in Sy. No.303/2C of Hinkal village. Therefore, it is contended that the petition at the instance of the intending purchasers is not maintainable. It is also claimed that the power of attorney holder has agreed to purchase the acquired land on 20.05.2015 and hence, the entire transaction between the petitioners and their general power of attorney holder is no less a transaction which is fraudulent. (ii). It is contended that after an award was passed on 10.01.1994, a notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 22.02.1994, which was received by the son of the notified khatedar i.e. Mr.Chikka Mallu. However, the notified khatedar did not receive the compensation and hence, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 it was deposited before the Civil Court on 10.07.2000. Later, possession of the subject land was taken over on 27.03.2000. As regards the implementation of the Scheme, it is said that the said issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.A. No.1826/2007, where it was held that the Schemes relating to Vijayanagara IV Stage I Phase and III Phase layouts have been implemented substantially. (iii). It is stated in the statement of objections that in W.P No.26609/2005, a coordinate Bench of this Court had noted the developments made in the layout and held that: "out of the total extent of land acquired, for the purpose of formation of Vijayanagar IV Stage I Phase i.e. 137 acres 35 guntas, 1461 sites of different dimensions are formed and 1223 sites are allotted to various applicants prior to 2005 itself". It is therefore, contended that the contention of the petitioners that the possession of the subject land is not taken and therefore, the Scheme has lapsed does not merit consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above and submitted that the petition is liable to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 be dismissed as no substantial ground is raised and besides that, the petition is highly belated. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification of the year 1993 in the year 2016. They have not disclosed the reason for the delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Even otherwise, the only contention urged by the petitioners is that possession of the land in question is not taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the Scheme has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and consequently, the acquisition has also lapsed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 9. The petitioners have not responded to the assertions made in the statement of objections by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that out of the notified 137 Acres 35 guntas, the respondent No.2 has formed 1461 sites of different dimensions and that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1826/2007 has already held that the Scheme relating to Vijayanagar IV Stage is substantially implemented. Therefore, the petitioners cannot assail the impugned notifications on the ground that the Scheme is not implemented. The question whether the delay in taking possession of the land acquired under the provisions of the KUDA Act, 1987 could result in lapsing of the acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is no longer res integra in view of a judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of K. Venkatesh v. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Others [W.P Nos.40874-40877 of 2017 (LA-BDA) disposed off on 05.01.2018], where it was held that acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 does not get affected under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28034 WP No. 50867 of 2016 10. In that view of the matter, no indulgence is warranted with the notices impugned in this petition. Consequently, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81