- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 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. 15657 OF 2013 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: MUNISWAMY RAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. PRAKASH, 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY RAJU, 2. KODANDARAM 54 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY RAJU, 3. SATYANARAYAN 42 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY RAJU, RESIDING AT NO.17TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN, JP NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560001 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560009 4. BALAJI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., (REGD.) NO.408, 50 FEET ROAD, HANUAMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560019, BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. N. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS-1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS' REPRESENTATION DATED 27.08.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND TO WITHDRAW/DENOTIFY THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.LAQ(1)SR11 OF 1988-89 DATED 03.09.1988 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RD313/AQB84 DATED 27.09.1989 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE LANDS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The legal representatives of deceased petitioner have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 27.08.2012 and to withdraw the preliminary notification - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 bearing No.LAQ(1)SR11 of 1988-89 dated 03.09.1988 issued by the respondent No.3 and the final notification bearing No.RD313/AQB484 dated 27.09.1989 issued by the respondent No.1. They have also sought for a declaration that the above notifications issued in respect of Sy.Nos.74 and 82 of Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk are vitiated, null and void and lapsed. They have also sought for a declaration that the above notifications have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2013' for short). 2. Though, this writ petition is filed in respect of Sy. Nos.74 and 82 of Vajarahalli Village, a memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on 06.10.2017 restricting this writ petition only to Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. Hence this writ petition is taken up for consideration only in respect of Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. Therefore any finding recorded herein shall be applicable only in respect of Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village and not in respect of Sy.No.82 of Vajarahalli - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 Village. Consequently, the relief sought in respect of Sy.No.82 of Vajarahalli Village is rejected. 3. (i) The petitioners contend that they are the owners of the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. They claim that the State Government passed an order dated 18.06.1993 under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and permitted the land bearing Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village, to be utilized for agricultural purposes. They claim that the respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.5909/1995 for perpetual injunction against their father in respect of Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village on the ground that the said land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of respondent No.4. (ii) The petitioners claim that only then, their father came to know of the acquisition and therefore, he challenged the acquisition before this Court in W.P.No.35980/1995, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.1996 on the ground of delay and laches. They contend that an appeal filed thereagainst in W.A.No.1190/1997 was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.10.1998. They contend that the suit filed by respondent No.4 was also dismissed on 06.11.2003. Therefore, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 they claim that they are in possession of the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. They contend that the acquisition of the land in Sy.No.74 for the benefit of respondent No.4, was secured fraudulently, as a middleman was engaged for the purpose of obtaining consent of the petitioners' father for acquisition of the land. They referred to the report of G.V.K.Rao and contended that 98 house building cooperative societies, including the respondent No.4 were found to have indulged in fraudulent acts in procuring the consent of the landowners through middlemen. They also contend that no housing scheme was prepared by the State Government, as required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before initiating acquisition proceedings. (iii) They contend that though the acquisition notifications were issued in the years 1988-1989, possession of the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village continues with them and there is no material to show that possession of the acquired land was taken over by the authorities from the petitioners in accordance with law by drawing a mahazar. The petitioners further contend that compensation was not paid to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, the acquisition has lapsed. (iv) They contend that taking advantage of the situation, the respondent No.4 is trying to encroach into the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. Hence, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 27.08.2012 to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, requesting them to withdraw the acquisition in respect of land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahali Village. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not consider the said representation. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.4, who has filed a statement of objections contending that the father of the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.35980/1995 which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.1996 and W.A.No.1190/1997 filed thereagainst was also dismissed vide judgment dated 06.10.1998. Therefore, it is contended that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the notifications. It is contended that the respondent No.4 has submitted a proposal for sanction of the layout plan in respect of various survey numbers including Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 Village. It is contended that possession of Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village was handed over by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 in accordance with law and that respondent No.4 has approached the Bangalore Development Authority for approval of the layout plan, which is pending consideration. 5. (i) A statement of objections is filed to the amended writ petition, where it is contended that petitioner No.2 was a member of the managing committee of respondent No.4 and was also allotted a site by respondent No.4. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners cannot act detrimental to the interests of the respondent No.4. It is further contended that possession of the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village was taken over and handed over to the respondent No.4 and the same is evident from the order passed in W.P.No.35980/1995, where it was held that possession of the land was taken over and a notification under Section 16(2) was issued on 20.01.1994. It is also stated that possession of the land was delivered to the respondent No.4-society on 09.03.1995. It is contended that the said finding of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.35980/1995 was upheld in W.A.No. 1190/1997. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners cannot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 continue to contend that possession of the land was not handed over to respondent No.4 and/or that they are in possession of Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. (ii) It is further contended that the office of the Land Acquisition Officer had informed the respondent No.4 about taking over physical possession of land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village and handing over the same to it and it was called upon to remit the conversion fine etc., for using the acquired land for the purpose of formation of a layout. It is also claimed that in so far as Sy.No.82 of Vajarahalli Village is concerned, the vendor of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners had executed various sale deeds and the purchasers of those sites were admitted as members of the respondent No.4-society, and corresponding sale deeds were executed in their favour. Further, it is stated that Site No.495 was allotted to the petitioner No.2. Hence, the petitioners cannot assail the acquisition or claim that the possession of the land in question is not handed over to the respondent no. 4. 6. A statement of objections is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 contending that after issuance of final notification dated 27.09.1989, a notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for the purpose of passing an award. The predecessor of the petitioners had participated in the enquiry proceedings and the respondent No.3 had passed an award in respect of land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village on 31.12.1990. The respondent No.3 issued a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Sy.Nos.74 and 82 of Vajarahalli Village. Thereafter the respondent No.3 tried to take possession of the land but the same was resisted by the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent No.3 requested the jurisdictional Thasildar to take physical possession by using force under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, Thasildar took possession on 13.01.1994 and handed over the same to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19.01.1994. Thereafter a notification dated 20.01.1998 under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 17.02.1994. However, while issuing the notification, Sy.No.73 was wrongly mentioned instead of Sy.No.74 Vajarahalli Village. 7. It is contended that the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village was handed over to the respondent No.4 on 09.03.1995 for the purpose of development. It is claimed that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 the respondent No.4 has utilised the land by forming a layout. Hence, the question of de-notifying the land in favour of the petitioners would not arise. Further, it is contended that under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition cannot lapse, as an award is already passed, the compensation is deposited and possession is taken. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. A list of documents is filed by the respondent No.4, which shows that the Bengaluru Development Authority had sanctioned a modified plan on 06.09.1999 and a further modification dated 27.04.2004, which includes the land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. Copies of the relinquishment deeds dated 19.12.1998 and 23.07.2004 are also enclosed, which show that the roads, parks and civic amenities have been handed over to the Bengaluru Development Authority. 9. A Commissioner was appointed by this Court in terms of the order dated 06.10.2017 to conduct a spot inspection and submit a report regarding the nature and state of affairs at the spot in respect of the land in Sy.No.74 of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 Vajarahalli Village. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner visited the land in question and submitted a report, stating that a compound is raised around the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli village and that there is a house measuring 1,200 square feet. He also reported that there are no identification marks indicating the development of parks, playgrounds and other developmental activities in the land in question and that there are no boundary marks of the park and playground in the land in question. He was of the opinion that the land in question is lying vacant without any developmental activity for more than two decades. The President and Secretary of the respondent No.4, who were present, informed him that they had applied for modification of the plan to the Bengaluru Development Authority and that after the modification, they would form parks, playgrounds, residential sites and other civic amenity sites etc. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.4 at its Annual General Body Meeting held on 15.09.2002, had taken a decision to give up the land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. A copy of the resolution is placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 submitted that the petitioners have therefore restricted the relief sought for in the writ petition in so far as Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village is concerned. He contends that, having regard to the fact that the respondents have failed to take possession and pay compensation, the impugned notifications may be quashed in so far as Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village is concerned. 11. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the land in question was acquired by the respondent No.1 for the purposes of the respondent No.4 and if the respondent No.4 is not desirous to utilise the land in question, it has to return the land back to the respondent No.1 for appropriate utilisation. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the other hand, contended that the respondent no. 4 has taken a policy decision to give up land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village and therefore had passed a resolution on 15.09.2002. Hence he prays that the petition be allowed in so far as Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli village is concerned. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. I have also perused the voluminous materials placed on record. 14. The predecessor of the petitioners (Muniswamy Raju) had challenged the acquisition of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.74 and 82 of Vajarahalli Village before this Court in W.P.No.35980/1995 on the following grounds: (i) that the respondent No.4 for whose benefit the lands were acquired, had engaged the services of an agent to get the impugned notifications issued; (ii) that monies had been exchanged between respondent No.4 and the said agent and between the said agent and others; (iii) that the petitioner had no notice of the acquisition proceedings and that no enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (iv) that there was no public notice of the notification; (v) that the exercise of power was a colourable one. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 15. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considered the aforesaid contentions and rejected the same on the ground that the State Government after according prior approval to the scheme No.RDA 313 AQB 84 dated 23.06.1988 had issued a preliminary notification, which was published in the official gazette on 15.09.1988 and in the local newspapers on 04.09.1988 and that a notice under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was sent by registered post acknowledgment due, which was served on the predecessors of petitioners on 31.10.1988. A public notice was also affixed in the Village Chavadi on 29.10.1988 and a detailed enquiry was conducted in terms of Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 07.11.1988 and a report was submitted to the Government, which issued a final notification. The documents placed on record by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the respondent No.4 categorically indicate that after the acquisition, a notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the predecessor of the petitioners and that the same was served and the compensation was determined in respect of the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli Village. The documents also disclose - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 that the compensation was deposited in a revenue deposit, since the predecessor of the petitioners did not turn up to collect the compensation. Later, possession of the land was taken and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 20.01.1994. The possession of the land was delivered to the respondent No.4- society on 09.03.1995. An appeal preferred against the order passed in W.P.No.35980/1995 was also rejected by the Division Bench. Therefore, at an undisputed point of time, this Court had already recorded a finding that possession of the land was taken over. 16. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of NCT of Delhi and Another v. Dayanand and Another - Civil Appeal No.481 of 2023, decided on 13.03.2023, if the landowner or land loser does not turn up to receive the compensation even after receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the deposit of the compensation amount in the revenue deposit is sufficient. Therefore, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 for an acquisition to lapse are absent in the present case. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 17. A perusal of the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shows that all survey numbers that were notified for acquisition were taken over and possession was handed over to the respondent No.4. However, it is not mentioned that possession of Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli Village is not taken over and handed over to respondent No.4. Curiously, though Sy.No.73 was mentioned in this notification, but it was not acquired. The area of Sy.No.73 of Vajrahalli is shown as 02 acres 29 guntas and 10 guntas of kharab, which corresponds to the area of Sy.No.74 of Vajrahalli. Therefore, it can be construed that possession of Sy.No.74 and not Sy.No.73 was taken over. Therefore, the acquisition cannot lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, as possession of the land in question was taken and the compensation is kept in a revenue deposit. 18. As regards the reliefs that can be granted to the petitioners, the Commissioner appointed by this Court has reported that there is no development in the land bearing Sy.No. 74 of Vajarahalli Village. However the relinquishment deeds executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of Bengaluru Development Authority would go to show that civic amenity - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 sites, roads and other parks and open spaces are relinquished in favour of the Bengaluru Development Authority. 19. It appears that at a meeting of the general body of the respondent No.4, a decision is taken to return the land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli village to the State Government. Therefore, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioners is to declare that they are entitled to retain possession of the land in Sy.No.74 of Vajarahalli village until the State Government issues appropriate notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 20. Hence the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. The challenge to the preliminary notification bearing No.LAQ(1)SR11/1988-89 dated 03.09.1988 issued by the respondent No.3 and the final notification bearing No.RD313/AQB484 dated 27.09.1989 issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of Sy.No.82 and 74 of Vajarahalli on the ground that they - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32402 WP No. 15657 of 2013 are lapsed, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, is rejected. (ii) It is open for the petitioners to remain in possession of the land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli village without any disturbance by the respondent No.4 until the proposal of the respondent No.4 sent pursuant to its general body meeting dated 15.09.2002 to the State Government for deletion of the land bearing Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli village is considered and a de-notification is issued under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Till such time, the petitioners shall not alienate, encumber, transfer or part with possession of the land in Sy. No.74 of Vajarahalli village in favour of any person whomsoever. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49