- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56270 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE SRI JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI. M.S. DEVARAJA S/O LATE SRI SIDDEGOWDA @ KARISIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 3. SRI. M.S. PRABHAKARA S/O SRI. SHANKAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF MADIGAHALLI VILLAGE BANNUR HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.H.ABHISHEK GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570001 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE-570001 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570001 5. THE TAHSILDAR T. NARASIPURA TALUK T. NARASIPURA-571124 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH T. NARASIPURA-571124 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5; SRI. M.N.PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AMENDED NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.LAQ.HSL.4/2012-13 (STATED AS L.A.Q/H.S.L/04/2013-14 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 19.07.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.L.A.Q/H.S.L/04/2012-13 DATED 20.11.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-S ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (STATED AS BOTH ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE) UNDER SECTIONS 3(1) AND 3(4) OF THE KARNATAKA ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR GRANT OF HOUSE SITES ACT, 1972. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the amended notification bearing No.LAQ. HSL.4/2012-13 dated 19.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 and the notification bearing No.L.A.Q/H.S.L/04/2012-13 dated 20.11.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) and Section 3(4) respectively, of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act, 1972'). 2. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos.31/2, 32/3 and 32/4 measuring 23 guntas, 18 guntas and 8 guntas respectively, all situate at Madigahalli Village in T. Narasipura Taluk. The petitioner No.2 is the owner of the land in Sy. No.32/5 measuring 13 guntas situate in the aforesaid village. The petitioner No.3 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.32/7 measuring 04 guntas situate in Madigahalli Village. The petitioners contend that some persons in the village belonging to Scheduled Caste submitted a representation to the Tahsildar, T. Narasipura Taluk to allot - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 housing sites under the 'Ashraya Scheme' and suggested the land in Sy. No.11/2 of Madigahalli Village, measuring 01 Acre 02 guntas. The Tahsildar directed the Gram Panchayat and the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat to submit a report regarding feasibility of acquisition of the land in Sy No.11/2 of Madigahalli Village. After receiving report, the Tahsildar found that both the reports of the Gram Panchayat and the Taluk Panchayat were contrary to each other in so far as it related to the persons who were entitled for allotment under the 'Ashraya Scheme'. Therefore, the Tahsildar issued a memorandum directing the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Accountant, Panchayat Development Officer and Panchayat Secretary to hold a joint survey with regard to the necessity of allotment of sites, if any, and to take steps to form sites in the land bearing Sy. No.11/2 with the consent of the owner of the land. A similar letter was addressed to the Executive Officer, T. Narasipura. However, for reasons unknown, the respondents proposed to acquire land in Sy. No.31/2 and other survey numbers belonging to the petitioners. The Tahsildar requested the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division to take necessary steps to acquire the land of the petitioners as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 petitioners did not voluntarily hand over the land. Thereafter, a notification was issued proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1972. Following this, a final notification was issued proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners for the aforesaid purpose. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notifications, have approached this Court. 4. Though the petitioners have raised several contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised a solitary but a formidable contention that even after the notification was issued under Section 3(4) of the Act, 1972, no Award under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the L.A. Act') was passed. He contends that this Court in terms of the order dated 10.12.2014, had only directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, but the impugned acquisition notifications were not stayed and hence, there was no embargo for the respondents to pass an award within the time as stipulated under Section 11A of the L.A. Act. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 submitted that no award is passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 in view of the pendency of this petition. He, however, contends that the acquisition of lands in question was for the purpose of the Gram Panchayat so as to provide sites to houseless persons and it is the Panchayat which has to give a report as to whether the lands in question are required or not. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo and enclosed therewith a copy of the communication dated 02.06.2025 addressed by the Panchayat Development Officer, Kodagahalli Gram Panchayat, to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, T. Narasipura, which indicates that 48 persons who were proposed to be allotted sites in the land bearing Sy. Nos.32/3, 32/4 and 32/5 of Madigahalli Village belonging to the petitioners were not houseless persons, but all of them had either a house or a site and that the said lands were agricultural lands and the acquisition of the said lands was subject matter of a case pending before the Court. He, therefore, contends that the purpose for which the land of the petitioners was acquired, does not presently exist and hence, the acquisition is liable to be set at nought. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 7. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 6 submits that the land in question is already notified for acquisition for formation of sites for houseless persons and assuming that 48 persons who were identified by the Gram Panchayath for allotment of sites actually owned a house or a site, that does not deprive the respondent Nos.4 and 6 to form a layout of residential sites for allotment to other eligible persons. He, therefore, contends that the impugned notifications be allowed to continue, so that the same could be utilized for formation of sites to houseless persons. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 6. 9. The acquisition in question is initiated under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1972 followed by declaration under Section 3(4) of the Act, 1972. When a final notification is issued and if the Government is unable to reach an agreement with the land owners regarding the compensation payable, then the case should be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 determination of the compensation to be paid for such acquisition and also to the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. For this purpose, the Deputy Commissioner is bound to serve a notice on the owner or occupant of such land and all persons known or believed to be interested therein to appear before him and state their respective interest in the said land. In order to enable the Deputy Commissioner to proceed with the determination of compensation, provisions of the L.A. Act shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner. Under Section 11A of the L.A. Act, it is incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award within two years from the date of publication of declaration failing which, the acquisition would lapse. For the sake of immediate reference, Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is extracted below: "[11A. Period within which an award shall be made.-(1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse : - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation : In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded." 10. A perusal of the order sheet in this writ petition would indicate that this Court had passed an interim order on 10.12.2014 directing maintenance of status quo as regards possession of the property. There is no stay of the impugned notifications issued by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. Therefore, there was no impediment for respondent No.2 to pass an award as specified under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1972 and within the time as stipulated under Section 11A of the L.A. Act. Therefore, on this short ground alone, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 6 that the persons who were identified for allotment of sites are now not eligible and that the acquisition may be allowed to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32401 WP No. 56270 of 2014 continue so that the respondent Nos.4 and 6 could allot sites to persons who are now eligible, it is relevant to note that once an acquisition has lapsed, no force on earth can resuscitate the acquisition. 11. Under the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. The amended notification bearing No. LAQ. HSL.4/2012-13 dated 19.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 and the notification bearing No.L.A.Q/H.S.L/04/2012-13 dated 20.11.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) and Section 3(4) respectively, of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, are quashed. If the name of the State Government is entered in Column Nos.9, 11 and 12 of the RTC, the same shall be removed and the names of the petitioners shall be restored in respect of their respective lands. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56