SRI KANTHA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014
R


CNR: KAHC010021262014





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JULY, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2310 OF 2014 (LA-UDA)


BETWEEN:

1. SRI. KANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE MANDA @ THAMMAIAH,
R/O MODALAHALLY VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 021.

2. SRI. VENKATESHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O KANTHA,
R/O MODALAHALLY VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 021.

3.
SRI. MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O KANTHA,
R/O MODALAHALLY VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 021.

4. SRI. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O KANTHA,
R/O MODALAHALLY VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 021.









Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



5. SRI. C. MANJU,
S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.2551/2, 3 CROSS,
KALIDASA ROAD, ONTIKOPPAL,
MYSURU - 570 002.

6. SRI. M. MAHADEVU,
S/O MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A KOORGAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAWADI POST, YELAVALA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 606.

7. SRI. SHIVANANJEGOWDA,
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O KUKKERIHUNDI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.

8. SRI. MAHADEVU,
S/O NINGEGOWDA @ VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 018.

…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE - 570 001.

3.
THE UNDER SECRTARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

4. SMT. JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O KANTHA,
R/O MODALAHALLY VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 021.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.10071/2012
DATED:20.05.2014 (LA-UDA), AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

Heard Sri.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, learned counsel
appearing for appellants, Sri. S.H.Raghavendra, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3,
Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This intra Court appeal has been filed

impugning the judgment and order dated 20.05.2014
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.10071/2012.

3. The appellant Nos.5 to 8 have bought the land
in question from its original owner i.e., appellant Nos.1 to
4 and respondent No.4, during the pendency of the writ
petition. They never disclosed this fact before the Writ
Court nor moved any application for impleadment. The
learned Single Judge decided the issue against the owners.
The appellant Nos.5 to 8 filed the application seeking
impleadment in the present appeal after 10 years from the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



date of filing of the appeal, which came to be allowed by
the order dated 10.04.2023.

4. Few facts would be important to take note of,
before deciding the issue mentioned below involved in this
writ appeal i.e.,
(i) whether the subsequent purchaser after land
acquisition proceedings got completed would have
any right to challenge the land acquisition
proceedings? and

(ii) whether the owners who have sold the property
during the pendency of writ petition would be
entitled to maintain the writ appeal?

5. The land in dispute is 6 acres 5 guntas in
Sy.No.264 at Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk
and District. A preliminary Notification under Section 16(1)
1
of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 was issued
on 01.04.1981, proposing to acquire an extent of 1023
acres of the land at Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk, for the

1
"The Act of 1903" for short

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



purpose of formation of Vijayanagar Layout, which would
include the land measuring 6.13 acres in Sy.No.264 of
Hinkal Village.

6. The State Government accorded its approval
under Section 17 of the Act of 1903 on 22.03.1984 for
formation of I stage of Vijayanagar Layout of Hinkal
Village to an extent of 100 acres. Thereafter, the State
Government has approved the scheme followed by Final
Notification under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1903, which
came to be published in the Official Gazette on
31.03.1984. It is also not in dispute that an Award came
to be passed on 21.04.1986 and the lands part of Final
Notification including the land in Sy.No.264 were declared
as Sarkari Beelu (Land forfeited for the reason of non-
payment of revenue). The compensation could not be paid
to anyone.

7. The State Government passed orders permitting
formation of Vijayanagar II Stage Layout on 15.10.1987 to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



an extent of 486.24 acres and thereafter passed orders
according approval for formation of Vijayanagar III Stage
on 03.06.1989 to an extent of 375.25 acres. Thus, the
total extent of land for which the Government had
accorded approval was 962.19 acre.

8. W.P.No.20956/2002 (PIL) was filed seeking

direction to protect the subject land from encroachment
and to utilize it for the purpose of which it was designated
2
in the Comprehensive Development Plan . The said writ
petition was disposed of on 11.03.2003, with an
observation that the Authority concerned had to take
appropriate steps to utilize the property for the purpose
for which it was reserved as per the CDP.

9. The original owners thereafter filed
W.P.No.10071/2012 on 29.03.2012, challenging the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question.
When the said writ petition was pending for final

2
" CDP" for short

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



determination, the appellant Nos.1 to 4 and respondent
No.4 executed the sale deed dated 11.09.2012 in favour of
one Sri.C.Manju and others. It may be noted that the land
acquisition proceedings got completed long back i.e.,
1984-86, the writ petition came to be filed on 29.03.2012,
as mentioned afore and the said writ petition came to be
dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.05.2014.

10. An interesting fact which requires to be taken
note of is, during the pendency of the said writ petition,
the appellant Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.4 had
executed the sale deed in favour of appellant Nos.5 to 8
without there having any right title or interest over the
property after the Final Notification was issued and the
land got vested in the Government.

11. The appellant Nos.5 to 8 who were aware of all
these proceedings and development took risk of getting
the sale deed executed in their favour by the earlier
owner, who had left with no right, title or interest on the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



property, inasmuch as land acquisition proceedings was
over and the challenge to the said acquisition proceedings
was pending before the High Court.

12. In this appeal, as observed afore, appellant
Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.4 are the original owners of
the property. They have filed writ petition and during the
pendency of the writ petition, they have sold the property
in favour of appellant Nos.5 to 8, however, this aspect of
the matter was not brought to the notice either of the Writ
Court or to this Court at the time of filing the appeal. It is
however, in the year 2022 for the first time, the
application has been filed by the appellant Nos.5 to 8
seeking to implead as appellants in this writ appeal,
challenging the order passed by the Writ Court which
came to be allowed on 10.04.2023. Since, the appellant
Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.4, petitioners before the
Writ Court had sold the property, during the pendency of
writ petition they have lost their interest and they cannot

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



maintain the writ petition, so also appellant Nos.5 to 8
who have purchased the property during the pendency of
the writ petition i.e., subsequent to the Preliminary and
Final Notifications. In that view of the matter, they cannot
claim any right, title or interest over the property, since
after Preliminary and Final Notifications, nothing left to the
owner to convey.
13. Our findings on this both appellant Nos.1 to 4
and respondent No.4 and appellant Nos.5 to 8 regarding
their right to maintain writ petition and writ appeal, gains
strength from the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.2074/2025 dated 08.06.2026, in the case
of Bangalore Development Authority Vs.
Sri.Chennakeshava.S and Others , referring to the
judgment of this Court at Paragraph Nos.12 and 13, the
Court held as under:
" 12. Our view gain strength with the judicial
pronouncement of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of H.N.SHIVANNA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



3
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER , wherein at paragraph
No.41, the Court held as under:
"40. In view of the findings recorded
earlier that under the Act, it is permissible to
issue successive notifications under Section
28(4) of the Act the challenge to the acquisition
on that ground has to necessarily fail. However,
it was contended in view of the settled legal
position, the final notification ought to have
been issued within a reasonable time of one
year and the award ought to have been passed
within a reasonable time of two years from the
date of final notification and in the instant case,
the final notification had been issued nearly
after five years from the date of preliminary
notification and the award having been passed
nearly after 4 years 8 months from the date of
final notification, the entire acquisition
proceedings lapses. Certainly, the said ground
would have been a valid ground for the
petitioners, if they had not sold their property
immediately after the preliminary notification.
On the day they filed the writ petitions they
were not the owners of the property. The
principle underlying acquisition being vitiated on
account of delay is, once a preliminary
notification is issued, the compensation payable
being the market value, the said value is
pegged to the date of preliminary notification.
Any delay in issuance of final notification and
passing of the award determining compensation
would obviously affect the interest of the land
owners because they are paid compensation on
the basis of the market value prevailing on the
date of the preliminary notification. In the
instant case, the question of paying the
compensation would not arise since within three
months from the date of preliminary
notification, the petitioners have sold the
property. Therefore, it is clear that the
petitioners did not intend to retain the property

3
2013 (4) AKR 163

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



and hence have sold the property within three
months from the date of preliminary
notification. They got the market price and
enjoyed the said value of the property. Now
they cannot be heard to say that the final
notification, which is issued 4 years 8 months
after the preliminary notification, vitiates the
acquisition proceedings, on the ground that they
are deprived of the market value of the
property.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. We are alive to the situation that any
observations or deliberations on the merits of the case,
having considered on the basis of the materials placed
before the Writ Court may prejudice either party, as per
the contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for
contesting respondent No.1/petitioner that, the same
would affect the rights of the subsequent purchaser,
when the entire action are held that the officials have
acted arbitrarily and without any authority of law in
disbursing the amount and granting 04 incentive sites to
a person who was neither in possession nor having any
right, title or interest in the property as the entire claim
was based on an unregistered document said to have
been executed by a dead person after three years of his
death and only on the entry in the RTC on the basis of
such document which cannot be considered as document
for the purpose of entering acquisition rights as provided
under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Accordingly, we dispose of this Writ Appeal holding that
the Writ Petition filed by the contesting respondent No.1/
petitioner is not maintainable. However, making it clear

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



that we have not expressed any view of ours on the
merits of the case as considered by the Writ Court."
14. Further the Supreme Court in DELHI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MANPREET SINGH
4
AND OTHERS , and DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY Vs. MGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND
5
OTHERS , has held that the subsequent purchaser has no
locus to maintain writ, seeking challenge to the acquisition
proceedings, in both the matters, at paragraph No.8,
which reads as under:
"In Civil Appeal No.277/2023:
8. The aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of
the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Shiv
Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 229 , which has been
subsequently followed by another Bench of this Court in
Godfrey Phillips (2022) 8 SCC 771 and State (NCT of
Delhi) Vs. Pawan Kumar (2022) 7 SCC 470 , this
Court has subsequently observed and held that a
subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the

4
(2023) 19 SCC 549 (Civil Appeals No.277/2023 c/w 278/2023
Dt:16.01.2023)
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 154 (Civil Appeal No.947/2023 Dt:17.02.2023)

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



acquisition proceedings/lapsing of the acquisition under
the 2013 Act."

"In Civil Appeal No.944/2023:
8. From the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, it appears that though before the High
Court and so stated in the counter, an objection was
raised on maintainability of the writ petition, at the
instance of the original writ petitioner - subsequent
purchaser, the same has not been dealt with by the High
Court. The High Court ought to have dealt with the said
aspect. Be that it may, the fact remains that the
respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to
pray for lapsing of the acquisition as observed and held by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is unsustainable."

15. We are therefore of the view that, once the
owners had alienated the property, they had left with no
interest in the property and therefore, the writ appeal on
their behalf would not be maintainable. We are also of the
view that the appellant Nos.5 to 8, who are subsequent
purchasers after the land acquisition got completed would
have no right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings
in any manner before this Court and they had no locus to

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:39226-DB
WA No. 2310 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010021262014



file this writ appeal. We therefore, dismiss this appeal,
however, without costs.

In view of dismissal of Writ Appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE


RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
ct-vn