Subsequent purchasers of land already under government acquisition have no legal right to challenge the acquisition proceedings, confirms Karnataka High Court.

The Mysore Urban Development Authority initiated land acquisition in 1981 for the Vijayanagar Layout, involving approximately 6 acres in Hinkal Village

Following a final notification in 1984, an award was passed in 1986 naming the land as state property because revenue was unpaid

In 2012, the original owners (Appellants 1-4) challenged these decades-old proceedings via a writ petition

During those proceedings, the original owners sold the property to subsequent purchasers (Appellants 5-8), a fact not disclosed to the Writ Court

The Single Judge dismissed the petition in 2014, and the subsequent purchasers sought impleadment in the resulting appeal nearly ten years later

1. Whether a subsequent purchaser of land, whose transaction occurred after the completion of acquisition proceedings, possesses the legal standing to challenge those proceedings.

2. Whether original owners who alienate their interest in a property during the pendency of litigation remain entitled to maintain a writ appeal regarding that property.

land title vests in the State upon the issuance of a Final Notification under the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903, leaving the original owner with no interest to convey

precedent established in H.N. Shivanna & Others v. State of Karnataka, which posits that parties who sell land post-notification cannot later claim prejudice regarding market value or procedural delays

Supreme Court rulings in Delhi Development Authority v. Manpreet Singh and Delhi Development Authority v. MGS (India) Private Limited, which firmly establish that subsequent purchasers lack the locus standi to seek the lapsing of acquisition proceedings

The court reasoned that because the acquisition process concluded between 1984 and 1986, the original owners were divested of their title long before the 2012 sale

Consequently, the sale deeds executed in favor of Appellants 5-8 were legally hollow because the vendors had no interest to transfer

The court observed that the original owners lost their stake in the outcome the moment they alienated the property, rendering their appeal unmaintainable

Regarding the buyers, the court determined that as "subsequent purchasers," they voluntarily assumed the risk of a pending legal dispute and, under established Supreme Court doctrine, moved outside the zone of protected interests entitled to challenge state acquisition

The court answered both issues in the negative: original owners lose their right to appeal upon selling the property, and subsequent purchasers have no legal standing to challenge completed acquisition proceedings

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly