Heirs cannot challenge acquisition after their predecessor settled the compensation-entitlement dispute.

The petitioners, the wife and children of late Prakash, claimed that MUDA had taken 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 92/23, Belavatha Village, for a Ring Road without acquiring it, and sought restoration of possession or allotment of alternative land.

MUDA maintained that the land had been acquired and that compensation had been deposited after a dispute arose between Prakash and his brother, Javaregowda, over entitlement to it.

In proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court directed equal distribution of the compensation; Prakash appealed, and he and Javaregowda settled their dispute before the Lok Adalat on 4 September 2010.

The petitioners also relied on a prior civil suit for injunction, which had been dismissed after the court found that Prakash had not proved lawful possession and that 10 guntas had been acquired.

1. Whether the petitioners could maintain that the 10 guntas in Sy. No. 92/23 had not been acquired, despite the compensation proceedings and the settlement between Prakash and Javaregowda.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of possession or allotment of alternative land.

The Court considered Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which disputes concerning apportionment of compensation may be referred to the civil court.

It treated the adjudication of the compensation claim and the subsequent Lok Adalat settlement as material to whether the petitioners could later deny the acquisition and seek further relief concerning the same land.

The Court noted that the compensation for the 10 guntas had been deposited before the civil court, that the Reference Court had determined the respective entitlement of Prakash and Javaregowda, and that they subsequently settled their dispute in the appeal.

It concluded that these proceedings amounted to Prakash’s tacit admission of the acquisition and the compensation deposited for it. The petitioners therefore could not re-open the acquisition or claim compensation or alternative land through this petition.

The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.