in the high court of karnataka at bangalore...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

BEFORE:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION Nos.16858 OF 2004 AND

9942-9949 OF 2014 (LA-RES)

CONNECTED WITH

WRIT PETITION No.22445 OF 2004 (LA-RES)

IN W.P.Nos.16856/2004 & 9942-9949/2014

BETWEEN:

1. Rajappa,

Son of Late Sonnappa,

Aged about 55 years,

Resident of Vajrahally,

Thalaghattapura Post,

Bangalore – 560 062.

2i) Seetharam,

Son of Late Bachappa,


ii) Shekar,

son of Late Bachappa,

aged about 35 years,

iii) Umesh,

2

son of Late Bachappa,


iv) Ammayamma,

wife of Late Era Swamy,


all are residing at Vajrahally,



3 i) Papaiah,

Son of Late Munishamappa,

Aged about 38years,

ii) Marappa,

son of Late Kenchappa,


both are residing at Vajrahally,



4. Veerachar,

Son of Late Veerabhadrachar,


Residing at Vajrahally,


Bangalore – 560 062,

Since deceased by

Legal representatives

a) Sathyeeramma,

wife of Late Veerachar,


3

b) Sri. Nagarjappa,


c) Sri. Prabhakar,


d) Sri. V. Mohan,


e) V. Dayananda,


all are sons of Veerachar,

residing at Vajrahalli,


Bangalore.

5. Smt. Lakshmamma,

Wife of Late G.M. Krishnappa,





6. Bommaiah,

Son of Late Sarekkappa,





7i) Nageshappa,

Son of Late Chikkaswamy,


4

ii) Chandrashekar,

son of Late Chikkaswamy,


both are residing at

Vajrahally,



8. Thippakka,

Wife of Late Muniyappa,





9. Krishnappa Rettappa,

Son of Late Ramaiah,

By his son, Sri. K. Reddy,





10. Narayanappa,

Son of Late Lolappa,





11. Marappa,

Son of Late Byrappa,


5




Since dead by


a) Muniyappa,

son of Marappa,





(amended vide court order

Dated 28.11.2005)

12. B.K. Nagaraj,

Son of Kempanna,





13 i) Byranna,

Son of Late Vajrappa,


Since deceased by


a) Savithramma,

wife of Late Byranna,

aged about 68 yeares,

b) Seetharam,


6

c) Vajrappa,


d) V. Raja,

aged about 28years,

all are sons of Late Byranna,

e) Nagaveni,

daughter of Byranna,





13 ii) Ramakka,

wife of Late Kempanna,


iii) Lakshmamma,

wife of Akalappa,


iv) Gowramma,

daughter of Late Kempanna,





7

14. Munithayappa,

Son of Late Annayappa,





15. Jayamma,

Wife of Late Lakshmaiah,





16. Nagamma,

Wife of B.C.Krishnappa,





17 i) Venkatamma,

Wife of Late Muniramaswamappa,


ii) Parvathamma,

wife of Laksmana Murthy,


both are residing at Vajrahally,



18. Muthaiah,

8

Son of Late Lolappa,

Aged about 58 years

Reisidng at Jaraganahally,

J.P.Nagar,


19. A. Nanjappa,

Son of Late Avalappa,

Aged about 55years,




20. Sri. Akkalappa,

Son of Late Narasimhappa,

Age: 61 years,

21. Muniraju,


Age: 59 years,

22. Smt. Kamalamma,

Daughter of Late Narasimhappa,

Age: 56 years,

23. Sri. V.N.Narayanaswamy,


Age: 55 years,

24. Sri. Puttaraju V.N.,


Age: 53 years,

25. Smt. Chandramma,

Daughter of Late Narasimhappa,

9

Age: 51 years,

26. Sri. Lokesh,


Age: 49 years,

27. Sri. Kempanna,


Age: 47 years,

Sl. Nos. 20 to 27 are

Resident of No.26,

Vajarahalli,


Kanakapura Main Road,


…PETITIONERS

(By Shri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate for Shri. B.R.

Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate for Petitioner Nos. 1 and 6

Shri. R.S. Hegde, Advocate fro Shri. Sanket M. Yenagi, Advocate

for Petitioner Nos. 2 to 27)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,

Represented by its Secretary to

The Government, Revenue Department,

M.S.Buildings,

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,


2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Visveshwaraiah Mini Tower,


10


3. The Bangalore City Co-operative Housing

Society Limited,

Represented by its Secretary,

Seethapathi Agrahara,

Chamarajpet,


4. R.L.N. Achar,

Son of Late Krishna Achar,


Residing at No.17/7,

Dattatreya Nagar,

Banashankari 3rd

Stage,


5. Sri. B. Sampath Kumar,

Age 42 years,

Son of K.G.Bettegowda,

No.58, 6th Main,

40th Cross, Jayanagar 5

th Block,


6. Sri. Raj Reddy Kallam,

Aged 45 years,

Son of Late Lakshama Reddy Kallam,

No.2008, TBCCHSL Layout,

Raghuvanahalli,

Kanakapura Road,


7. Sri. Krishnaprasad S.V.,

Age 37 years,

Son of Varadaraju S.K.,

11

No.G5, Sharavanthi Regency,

7th

Cross, 2nd

Lane, 1st Stage,

Teachers Colony,


8. Sri. Santhosh Kumar,

Age 36 years,

Son of Late Srishyla Murhty,

Resident of No.2029, T.B.C.C.H.S. Layout,

Raghuvanahalli Gate,



9. Smt. S. Shri. Vidya,

Major,

Resident of No.2028,

TBCCHS Layout,




10. Smt. B.V. Vasantha,

Major,

Residing at Farm House,

Devarayana Swamy Temple Street,

Devanahalli – 562 100.

11. Sri. G. Radhakrishnan,

Major,

Son of S. Ganapathy,

No.134, 17th Main,

B.T.M. II stage,


12. Smt. Nanditha H.K.,

12

Major,

Resident of No.14/1,

Annayappa Garden,

3rd

Cross, Jaraganahalli,


13. Sri. Krishnamurthy Rajendra,

Major, S/o. Rajendra,

No.20, 12th

‘A’ Cross,

Hanumagirinagar,

Chikkalasandra Main Road,


14. Sri. Rohit Thimmaiah,

Major,

Resident of No.29,

T.B.C.C.H.S. Layout,


Shanimahathma Temple Road,



15. Smt. M.G. Rama,

Age: 58 years,

Wife of Gurunath .M,

Resident of No.193,

Tulasi Shankar Krupa,

5th

Main Road,

Chamarajpet,


16. Sri. Rudreshappa,

Age 62 years,

Son of Siddamallappa,

Resident of No.203,

13

13th Main, R.B.I. Layout,

J.P.Nagar 7th

Phase,


17. Sri. S.R. Gurumurthy,

Age 34 years,

Son of Rudreshappa,

Resident of No.203,


J.P.Nagar 7th

Phase,


18. Smt. Neetu H.S.

Age: 27 years,

Wife of Gurumurthy S.R.,

Resident of No.203,


J.P.Nagar 7th

Phase,


19. Smt. Rajeshawari .S,

Age 38 years,

Wife of B. Sampath Kumar,

No.58, 6th Main, 40

th Cross,

Jayanagar 5th Block,


20. Smt. A.V. Shubha Shankar,

Age 55 years,

Wife of A.G. Vidya Shankar,

No.125, Skanda,

10th Main Road, (opp. V.S.G.Temple)

Shankar Nagar,

Mahalakshmi Layout,


14

21. Dr. Ehrar Habeeb,

Major,

Daughter of Late Mr. Hussain Peer,

No.1788, TBCCHS Layout,

Raghuvanahalli,

Near Kanakapura Main Road,


22. Smt. A.B. Padmavathi,

Age: 49 years,

Wife of A.G. Balaji Gupta,

No.507/2, 1st Floor,

New Diagonal Road,

III Block, Jayanagar,


23. Sri. A.S. Pramod Kumari,

Age: 50 years,

Wife of A.G. Sudhakar,

No.40, 6th Cross,

Wilson Garden,


24. Smt. B.S. Chandrakala,

Age: 53 years,

Wife of B.N. Sampath Kumar,

No.215, Middle School Road,

Visweswara Puram,


25. Smt. K.R.Shantha,

Major,

Wife of D.N.Ramesh,

No.491, ‘Sri Chakra’,

15

5th

Main II Block,

III Stage, III Block,

Banashankari III Stage,


26. Smt. Krishna Veni,

56 years,

Wife of M.V. Srinivas Murthy,

No.774, 4th

Main,

1 ‘A’ Block, II Stage,

Rajajinagar,


27. Smt. S.R. Mamatha,

Age 32 years,

Wife of V.G. Prasannakumar,

Resident No.4, 4th

Cross,

Ramaiah City,

J.P.Nagar 8th

Phase,


28. G. Narasimha Murthy,

Major,

Resident of Chikkathirupathi Post,

Malur,

Kolar District.

29. Ramesh Dasari,

Major,

8-3-988/34/11,

SBH Colony 2,

Srinagar Colony,

Hyderabad – 500 073.

Site No.609.

16

30. V.D. Keshava Murthy,

Son of Late V.M. Devappa Naik,

No.14/4, out house,

Manjunatha Nilaya,

Near Raghavendra Temple,

Magadi Road,


31. V. Viswanatha Holla,

Major,

Resident of 17/4,

1st Floor, 5ht Main,

BSK 3rd

Phase,

Ittamadu,


32. Mahesh .M,

Major,

Resident of 17/4,

1st Floor, 5

th Main,

BSK 3rd

Stage,

Ittamadu,


33. A.R. Manohar,

Major,


Shankar mutt Road,

Chamarajapet,

Bangalore – 5670018.

34. A.R. Pradeep,

Major,

Resident of Sri Sai Krupa,

14th Cross, 32

nd Main,

17

J.P.Nagar 1st Phase,


35. Vinod Kumar,

Major,

Resident of 49/2,

1st Floor 10

th A Main,

1st Block, Jayanagar,


36. Jayanthi Shivaram,

Major,

Resident of 49/2,

Ground Floor, 10th

A Main,

1st Block,

Jayanagar,


37. Dr.M.R.V. Prasad,

Son of Late Raghava Rao,

Aged 61 years,

No.63, 3rd

Cross,

3rd

Block, T.R.Nagar,


Site No.1290

38. Sri. B.S. Narendra,

Son of Late H.A. Subba Rao,


39. S. Raghavendra Rao,

Son of Late H.A. Subba Rao,


40. B.S. Bhaskar Rao,

18

Son of Late H.A.Subba Rao,


38 to 40 are residing at No.900/3,

6th

Main, K.H.B. Main Road,

Kaval Byrasandra,

R.T.Nagar Post,


41. Smt. K. Indiramma,


Wife of Shankara Narayana,

Residing at No.252,

7th

Cross, 7th

main, RPC Layout,

Vijayanagar II Stage,


42. Sri. S. Gopal Krishna,


Son of Late Srikantaiah,

Residing at No.290,

Sri. Raghavendra Krupa,

Godavari River Road,

Pipeline 5th main,

Srinagar,


43. Sri. Nagesh G.N.,

Son of Late Nagaraj Rao .G,

Age: 51 years,

No.27, 8th Main,

Dattatreya Nagara,

Hoskerehalli,

BSK 3rd

Stage,


19

44. Sri. G.S. Nanjundaiah,

Son of G. Subbaiah,

Age: 77years,

Surabhi, No.49,

3rd

Cross, Akshyanagara,

Begur Post,


45. Smt. Doddammani,

Wife of Krishnappa .H,

Age: 58 years,

No.E-107, Golden Magic,

Brigade Gardenia,

RBI Layout, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase,


46. Sri. B.Sidde Gowda,

Son of Byregowda,

Age: 65 years,

No.262, 3rd

Main Road,

ISRO Layout,


47. Smt. Jayanthi Vishnu Prasad,

Wife of Vishnu Prasad,

Age: 35 years,

No.192/20, Shankaramutt Road,

Chamarajapet,


48. Sri. V.N.Prabhakar Rao,

Son of V.N. Narayana Rao,

Age: 55 years,

No.544, “Shashwatha”,

20

2nd

Cross, 26th

Main,

BTM Layout, 2nd

Stage,


49. Sri. Arvind . N,

Son of Late Nagaraj Shetty,

Age: 31 years,

Resident of Sri. Venkateshwara Nilaya,

No.42/14, 2nd

Main Road,

Mount Joy Extension,

Hanumanth Nagara,


50. Smt. H.S.Gayathri,

Daughter of Late H.T. Subbarao,

Age: 62 years,

Resident of Rishika Enclave,

Site No.64/65, Flat No.002,

Ground Floor, 3rd

Cross,

Vittal Nagar, 2nd

Phase,

Adjacent to ISRO Layout,


51. Sri. Ashok. A,

Son of K.N. Basavegowda,

Major,

No.56, 3rd

Main, 1st Cross,

New Kempegowda Layout,

Katriguppa,

Banashankari 3rd

Stage,


52. Smt. Meenakshi,

Wife of Sangamesh Badavadgi,

Major,

21

No.2478, 7th Main,

7th

Cross, R.P.C.Layout

(Hampinagar), Vijayanagara 2nd

Stage,


53. Smt. Vijayalaxmi C.S.,

Wife of B.Y.Thimmegowda,

Major, no.57,

3rd

Main, 1st Cross,

New Kempegowda Layout

Katriguppe, BSK 3rd

Stage,


54. Sri. K.S. Madhusudana,

Son of K.V. Sheshagiri,

40 years,

Represented by his

Spl. Holder K.V. Sheshagiri,

Age: 76 years,

Son of Venkobarao,

No.202, “Venkatagiri”,

Kumbar Street,

K.R.Puram,


55. Sri. Venkatesh,

Son of Channaiah,

Age: 70 years, No.1101,

Sri. Venkateshwaraswamy Nilaya,

BCCH Society Layout,

Bayyannapalya,




22

56. Sri. K.C. Chidanand,

Son of K.B.Chikkabettaiah,

Age: 33 years,

No.589, 1st Cross,

K.G.Layout,

3rd

Block, 3rd

Phase,

BSK 3rd

Stage,


57. Smt. M. Gangamma,

Wife of Govinda,

Age: 52 years,

Resident of No.31,

KPA Block, Chandra Layout,

Vijayanagara,


58. B.G. Manjunath,

Son of B. Gundaiah,

Major,

Resident of Sompekatte,

Hosanagara Taluk,

Shimoga District.

59. Ganesh Mane,

Son of G.S. Mane,

Age 44 years,

Resident of C-001,

Terrace Garden Apartments,

BSK 3rd

Stage,

3rd

Phase, Bangalore – 560085.

60. V.N. Jagadishwaran,

S/o. V. Narayana Iyer,

Age 62 years,

23

No.1718, 31st Cross,

13th Main, BSK 2

nd Stage,


61. Raghunath.G,

Son of H.S. Gopinath Rao,

Age : 55 years,

No.61, 13th

Main,

AGS Layout,

Arehalli,


62. K.B. Narayana,

Son of K.N. Bettaiah,

Age: 66years,

No.31, 4th Cross,

Kalidasa Layout,

Srinagara,


63. Srinivasa Prasad K.A.,

Son of K.V. Anantha Keshava,

Age: 46 years,

No.730, 17th Cross,

6th

Phase, J.P.Nagar,


64. Sri. S.K. Muralidhar,

Son of S. Krishnarao,

Age 59years,

Resident of No.106,

2 H Main Road,

11th Block, 2

nd Stage,

Nagarabhavi Layout,


24

65. Sri. C.S.Murali,

Son of Late C.S.S.Murthy,

Age: 57 years,

Resident of No.678-B,

“Seetha”, 2nd

Stage,

3rd

Phase, 8th main,

Domlur.

66. Sri. H.S.Prakash,

Son of Late H.V. Suryanarayanarao,

Age: 60 years,

Resident of No.7, A Street,

East of Link Road,

Malleshwaram,


67. Sri. K. Kemparaju,

Son of Kempegowda,

Age 42 years,

Resident of No.70,

Desai Garden,

Vallabhanagara,

Vasanthapura Main Road,


68. Smt. Jayamma,

Wife of Kempegowda,

Age: 60 years,

Resident of No.70,

Desai Garden,

Vallabhanagara,

Vasanthapura Main Road,


25

69. Sri. Rizwanulla,

Son of Sri. Ismail Khan,

Aged 54 years,

Resident of No.6, Ilahi Mension,

Basavaraj Layout,

Jaraganahalli 6th Phase,

Jeevan Bheema Nagar,


70. Madhu Shankar Narayan,

Wife of Shankara Narayan,

Age: 48 years,

No.67, Mount Joy Road,

1st Block East, Jayanagara,


71. Sri. Rathnagiri Swamynathan,

Son of Late R. Srinivasan,

Age 62 years,

Resident of No.239/3, A Cross,

Bull Temple Road,

Chamarajpet,


72. Smt. Suguna Simha,

Wife of K.G.Jayasimha,


No.766, Sri Nivas,

18th Main, 36

th Cross,

IV ‘T’ Block,

Jayanagar,


73. Smt. S. Prema,

Wife of Anantha Narayan,

26


No.1553, 39th F Cross,

18th Main, Jayanagar

IV T Block, Jayanagar,


74. Smt. Aparna Ananth,

Wife of C.S. Viswanath,

Aged about 44years,

No.1553, 39th F Cross,

18th Main, Jayanagar

IV T Block, Jayanagar,


75. Sri. T.N.Muralidhar,

Son of T. Nagabhushan,


No.259, 1st Cross,

Hanumanthnagar,


76. Dr. Bhagyanathulu Ravindranath,

Son of B.S.Rao,

Aged about yeares

No.610, 15th Cross, VI Phase,

J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.

77. Sri. T.N.Anantharamu,

Son of T.R. Nagappa,


No.809, 19th Cross,

16th Main, BSK II Stage,


78. Sri. M.N. Narendra Rao,

27

Son of M.L.Narayana Rao


No.88, R.V.Road,

Basavanagudi,


79. Sri. A.C.Arun,

Son of A.r.Charudatha,


No.40, Pranam C.R.Layout,

J.P.Nagar I Phase,


80. Smt. Pushpalatha K.R.,

Wife of S.G. Lakshmi Narayan,


No.550, 2nd

Stage,

11th Cross, Nagpur Main Road,

West of Chord Road,


81. Sri. Srinivasa .N,

Son of Lakshmi Narayanan,


No.7, Srinivasa Nilaya,

Muniswamappa Garden,

Chunchanaghatta Village,

Uttarahalli Hobli,

Bangalore South Taluk,


82. Sri. Balaji Prasad T.P.,

Son of Prasanna Kumar T.G.,


Plot No.403,

28

Suraksha Residency , 4th

Floor,

White Field,

Kondapur, Sarelingampalli Mandal,

Hyderabad.

83. Smt. Sujatha Chandrashekar,

Wife of R. Chandrashekar,


No.42, Doctors Colony,

2nd

‘A’ Cross, Konanakunte,


84. Sri. J. Shekar,

Son of T. Jayaram,


No.491, BCCHS Layout,

Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Main,

J.P.Nagar,


85. Sri. H.S.Shivashankar,

Son of H. Srikantaiah,


No.82/32B, B Main,

4th

Cross, Sarakki Main, Arya Nagar,

Vysya Bank Colony,

J.P.Nagar 1st Phase,


86. Smt. Annapoorna,

Wife of H.S. Nagabhushana,

Aged about years,

100 feet Ring Road,

Bannerghatta Road,


29

87. Sri. Ravikumar .J,

Son of Premchand Jain,

Aged about years,

No.120, 3rd

Main,

2nd

Stage, 1st Block,

Rajmahal Extension,


88. Sri. M. Hanumantharayappa,

Son of Late Mahimeramgalal,

Aged about years,

No.2591, 8th Main, 17

th Cross,

BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

89. Sri. K.S.Ramanathan,

Son of Late R. Srinivasaiah,


Flat No.3E,

Pavan Pardesi,

63/A, 1st Cross,

Tyagarajanagar,


90. Smt. Madhu Mathi,

Wife of Raghotham U.R.,

Aged about years,

No.274, Srinivasa Nagar,


91. Smt. Bhavani V.L.,

Wife of Ravikumar,


No.41/1A, 3rd

Cross,

3rd

Block, Tyagarajanagar,

30


92. Smt. M.B. Roopasri,

Daughter of M.R.Balaji,

Aged about 33years,

No.109, Bhargavi , 4th Block,

4th

Cross, T.R.Nagar,


93. Sri. M.B.Sheshachandra,

Son of M.R.Balaji,

Aged about 43years,

No.109, Bhargavi,

4th

Block, 4th

Cross,

T.R.Nagar,


94. Smt. Radha Narayan,

Wife of Narayan M.R.,


No.172/43, (Upstairs),

5th

Cross, II Block,

Jayanagar,


95. Smt. Manjula,

Wife of R. Sheshagiri Rao,


No.183/2, 2nd

Main,

Chamarajpet,


96. Smt. Nandini Murthy,

Wife of

Aged about years,

31

No.38, Akshaya, 7th

Main,

Saraswathipuram,

Mysore.

97. Smt. B.P.Latha,

Wife of C.J. Balasubramanya,

Aged about 45years,

No.56, Gurukrupa, 2nd

Main,

3rd

Block, 3rd

Stage,

West of Chord Road,

Bangalore.

98. Sri. Ramachandra Sharma Kotagal,

Son of K.S.Krishna Sharma,


c/o.S. Manjunatha,

No.12, 5th Cross, Nagappa Street,

Palace Guttahalli,


Represented by GPA Holder,

K.S. Krishna Sharma,

Son of K. Srinivasa Shastri.

99. Sri. D. Narasimhaiah Pai,

Son of Late Damodara Pai,

Aged about years,

No.B28, 1053, BDA Quarters,

Austin Town, 2nd

Stage,

Neelasandra,


100. Sri. Nagaraja Chikkagowda,

Son of K.H.Chikka Gowda,


No.317, 2nd

Main,

32

4th

Stage, BEML Layout,

Rajeshwari Nagar,


101. Sri. P.N. Koushik,

Son of HRS Nagaraju,


No.778, 34 ‘A’ Cross,

9th

Main, 4th Block,

Jayanagar,


102. Sri. Deepak Nayak,

Son of B.H.Nayak,


No.2018, Ground Floor,

18th A Main, J.P.Nagar 2

nd Phase,


103. Sri. B.R.Shankar,

Son of Ramasheshaiah,

Aged about 57years,

No.279, 1st Floor,

100 feet Ring Road,

Katriguppa,

BSK 1st Stage,


104. Sri. H. Basavesha,

Son of M.B.Hosa Goud,


No.1198/76, 6th Main,

D Block, AECS Layout,

Kundalahalli,


33

105. Sri. Anil Kumar Murali,

Son of T.R.Nagappa,


No.53/1, 1st Main,

9th

Cross, V.V.Nagar,

Vasanthpur,


106. Sri. Dattatri V.,

Son of Venkateshan,


No.2335, 20th Cross,

BSK II Stage,


107. Sri. Sathish Kumar Narule,

Son of Ashok Rao Narule,


No.53/1, 9th Cross,

1st Main, Vasantha Vallaba Nagar,


108. Smt. Asha B.S.,

Wife of B.A.Sridhar,


No.2333, 20th Cross,

39th F Cross, BSK II Stage,


109. Sri. Abhijith.S,

Son of N. Shashidhara,


No.70, 11th

Main Road,


34


110. Smt. B.S. Girija,

Wife of N. Shashidhara,


No.70, 11th

Main Road,



111. Smt. Preethi Vidyananda,

Wife of Vidyananda,

Aged about 50 yeares,

No.1812 (1568), 39th

F Cross,

4th

T Block, Jayanagar,


112. Smt. Girija Shankar

(GPA Holder),

Wife of Gowrishankar,


No.1812 (1568)

39th F Cross, 4

th Block,

Jayanagar,


113. Smt. Sowmya M. Kumar,

Wife of K.V.Manjunath Kumar,



5th

Cross, 20th Main, J.P.Nagar II Phase,


114. Smt. S. Praba Murthy,

Aged 52 years,

Wife of J. Srikantamurthy,

35

Doctors Colony,

1st Main, 1

st Cross,

Doddakallasandra Post,

Konanakunte,


115. K.N. Surya Narayana Rao,

Aged 62 years,

Son of K.S.Nagaraja Rao,

Resident of No.49, 6th Main,

BTM Layout, 2nd

Stage,


116. J.S.S. Anand,

Aged 37 years,

Son of Jayaraman C.A.,

F-3, V.R.Apartment,

(Opp to Rapsri Engineering)

Uttarahalli Main Road,


117. S.G. Sridhar,

Son of S. Gopala Krishnan,

Aged 42 years,

No.290, Sree Raghavendra Krupa,

Pipeline Road,

‘L’ Cross, Srinagar,


118. Dr. S.N. Sathyanarayana,

Son of Late Sontha Neelakantappa &

Sharada Shetty, aged about 67 years,

No.775, 1st Floor, 53

rd Main,

25th Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout,


36

119. Sri. Avinash Adiga,

Aged 32 years,

Son of Rangayya Adiga,

No.18, ‘Nanda Deepa’,

Vittal Nagar, Near ISRO Layout,


120. S.N.Ramesh,

Son of Late S.Nanjundaiah,

No.70, 11th

‘B’ Main,

V Block, Jayanagar,


121. Deepa N Shet,

Wife of Nagesh N Shet,

Represented by her GPA Holder

Sri Nagesh N Shet, no.854/83,

1st Floor, 14

th Cross,

Mahalakshmi Layout,


122. M.R.Parthasarathy,

Aged 71 years,

Son of Late Rajagopalan M.N.,

No.173, 1st Block, Jayanagar,


123. M.P.Rajagopal,

Aged 52 years,

Son of M. Parthasarathy,

No.173/43, 5th

cross,

1st Block, Bangalore – 560 011.

124. Ambika Rajagopal Padaki,

37

Wife of P. Rajagopal,

No.70/2, 8th Main,

Mathikere Extension,


125. Gowri Rajaram,

Wife B.K. Rajaram,

No.69, 11th

B Main,

5th

Block, Jayanagar,


126. B.S. Sathyanarayana,

Son of Suryanarayana Rao,

No.62, 5th Cross,

Hanumanthanagar,


127. Smt. Nagamani,

Aged 61 years,

Wife of C.N. Govindaraju,

No.20, 1st cross,

Brindavan Layout,

Horamavu, Near Gandhi Statue,


128. Smt. C.R.Swaroop Kishan,

Aged 35 years,

Daughter of Sri. C.V.Raghavachari,

No.002, Narasi Apartment,

No.3, LIC Colony,

Yeshwantpur,


129. K.B.S. Ramachandra,

Represented by his GPA

38

Holder Rama Vishnu Hebbar,

16th MCR Extension,

18th Cross, Vijayanagar,


130 .Smt. Lakshmi Bhat,

Aged 52 years,

Wife of Ganapathi Anantha Bhat,

No.38/A, (Opp Mother Diary),

Yelahanka New Town,


131. Smt. P. Geetha P Bhat,

Aged 55 years,

Wife of Prabhakar N Bhat,

No.1859, 11th ‘A’ main,

4th

T Block, Jayanagar,


132. Sri. Ramachandra K.B.S.,

Son of S.G.Bhat,

No.166, MCR Extension,

18th Cross, Vijayanagar,


133. Sri. Jayashree Bhat,

Aged 52 years,

Wife of K.S.Bhatt, no.166,

Srigiri, MCR Extension,

P.O.Road, Vijayanagar,

Bangalore.

134. R.Rajani,

Wife of Sri. G. Raghu,

No.1278, 27th Main,

39

8th

Cross, 1st Phase,

J.P.Nagar,


135. S. Chandrashekar,

Aged 65 years,

Son of S. Shivashastry,

No.564, 20th Main,

36th Cross, 4

th T Block,

Jayanagar,


136. Sri. S. Srikanta,

Aged 61 years,

Son of Late Shivashastri,

No.766, Srinivas,

18th Main, 36

th Cross,

4th

T Block,

Jayanagar,


137. Sri. N.S.Girish,

Aged 35 years,

Son of Shankara Narayan,

Represented by his GPA holder

Sri. Shankar Narayan, No.3506/A,

6th

Cross, Gayathrinagar,

Subramanyapuram Post,


138. Sri. H.R. Subramanya,

Aged 41 years,

Son of Late H.S.Rachandraiah,

No.38, 2nd

A Cross, 1st Main,

Doctors Colony,

40

Konanakunte,


139. Sri. P.V.Raghavendrachar,

Aged 76 years,

Son of Late P.R.Venkataramana,

No.8, 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout,


140. Sri. V. Ravi, aged 50 years,

C/o. M.C. Vasudeva Rao,

No.19, Vallabhanagar,

Vasanthpur,


141. Smt. H.V.Padma,

Wife of Late H.V.Venkateshaiah,

Aged 76 years,

No.42/3, East Anjaneya Temple Street,

Basavanagudi,


142. Smt. M.Susheela,

Wife of Sri. K.V.Naresh,

Aged 57 years,

“Sri Saiganga”,

No.896/1, Out House,

1st Floor, 19

th Main,

BSK 2nd

Stage,

Bangalore.

143. Sri. Laxmaiah,

Son of Bavanna,

Aged 59 years,

No.17/1, Kempanna Cross,

41

Banashankari Temple Road,

Mavalli,


144. Smt. Divya .C,

Wife of Deepak Rudraiah,

Aged 31 years,

No.3944 B,

17th D Cross, 4

th Main,

BSK 2nd

Stage,


145. Sri. Hanumantha Rao,

Son of Manikrao,

Aged 54 years,

No.138, 4th

Main,

9th

Cross, Chamarajpet,


146. Smt. A.N. Suvarna Mukhi,

Wife of Venkatanarayana Rao,

Aged 61 years, No.62/1,

6th

Cross, 5th

Main,

3rd

Block, T.R.Nagar,


147. Smt. Uma .S,

Daughter of Late Shankaram .M,


Residing at No.239/3/1,

B.T.Road,

Chamarajpet,


148. Smt. Geetha Bai H.S.,

42

Wife of Madhuranath,

Aged 32 years,


5th

Main, Kempegowdanagar,


149. Smt. Premakumari B.S.,

Wife of Srikanta Sharma,

Aged 64 years,

Resident of No.785,

20th Main, 36

th A Cross,

4th

T Block, Jayanagar,


150. Smt. Kalpana J Rao,

Wife of Jagadish Rao,

Aged 47 years,

No.416, 5th

Cross, 4th

Main,

J.P.Nagar 3rd

Phase, Bangalore – 560 056,

Represented by her GPA holder

Sri Akshay J Rao,

Sonof Jagadish Rao C.S.,

Aged 18 years,

Resident of No.B 1402,

Mangolia Block, Brigade Millennium,

J.P.Nagar 7th

Phase,


151. Sri. Lakshmikanth Kulkarni,

Son of Manik Rao,

Aged 64 years,

No.77, 8th Block,

Nagarabhavi 2nd

Stage,


43

152. Smt. Hema Ravi,

Wife of Sri. D.K.Ravi,


Resident No.110, Padma Nilaya,

16th Cross, 8

th Main,

J.P.Nagar 4th

Phase,


153. Smt. V. Padma Rekha,

Wife of Sri. K.V. Rajeevalochana,

Aged about 53years,


Srinivasa Nilaya,

11th Main, RPC Layout,

Vijayanagar,


154. Sri. Kiran Kumar .B,

Son of Sri. C.S. Balamukunda,


Currently resident of No.44,

Sama Building,

A1 Khuwair, Muscat,

Sultante of Oman,

Represented by his duly

Constituted attorney

Sri. B.S. Venkatanarasaiah.

155. Sri. K.S.Ashwathnarayana Rao,

Son of Late Sri. Surappa,


Resident of No.108/B,

‘Yashas’, 7th

A Main,

3rd

Cross, T.R.Nagar,


44

156. Ms. Vasantha B.V.,

Daughter of B.V. Varadachar,

Resident of Maralubagilu Farm House,

II Division, Devanahalli Town,

Bangalore Rural District.

157. Ms. S. Jyothi,

Daughter of Sri. Srinivas,


Resident of No.681, 9th

main,

10th Cross, Vijayanagar 1

st Stage,

Mysore – 570 017.

158. Smt. Indira Shivaram,

Wife of Sri. Shivaram,



main,

10th Cross, Vijayanagar 1

st Stage,

Mysore – 570 017.

159. Sri. V.N. Kiran,

Son of Vasnathalakshmi,


Resident of No.1583/A,

26th Cross, 30

th Main,

BSK II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

160. K.S. Kavya Shree,

Wife of Sri. Dharshan Rangegowda,


Resident of No.451,

Inchara, 11th Main,

6th

Cross, Canara Bank Layout,

Vidyaranyapura Post,

45


Represented by her duly


Sri. K.K. Shivalingaiah.

161. Sri. Girish .S,

Son of C. Shivashankar,


Resident of No.33,

3rd

Main, Hanumanthanagar,

Opp. Vijaya Bank,

Bangalore.

162. Dr. Prashanth Ramakrishna Keshav,

Son of Sri. Dr. P.K.Ramakrishna Rao,



Chestnut Hill, Mansion Drive,

Ohio, 45040, USA,

Represented by his duly


Dr. P.K. Ramakrishna Rao.

163. Smt. Shubha Sheshadri,

Wife of Ravi .R,

Resident of No.19, 1st A Cross,

SBM Colony,


164. Sri. S.Venkatesh,

Son of A.V.Sesha Iyengar,

Age 56 yeaers,

Resident of NO.7075,

Bennington Woods Drive,

Pittsburg, USA, 15237,

46

Represented by his GPA holder

Smt. Shyamala,

Age 62 years,

Wife of K.S.Anantharaj,


Shankarmutt Road,

Chamarajpet,


165. Sri. Prasanna L.C.,

Age 44 years,

Son of HSL Murthy,

No.32, “Sri Keshava”,

3rd

Cross, 1st main,

Samruddhi Layout,

Subramanyapura Post,


166. Smt. Amudha S.,

Age 42 years,

Wife of R. Thyagarajan,

No.778, 25th Cross,

53rd

Main,

Kumaraswmay Layout 1st Stage,


167. Dr. B.N. Somashekar,

Age 58 years,

Son of N. Narasimha Rao,

No.14/1, Obalappa Street,

Chikkamavalli,


168. Sri. B.N. Mohan Kumar,

Age 56 years,

47

Son of N. Narasimha Rao,

No.11/2, Old Kasi Cross Road,

(Minerva Circle),

Doddamavalli,


169. Smt. Geetha,

Age 50 years,

Wife of B.N. Mohan Kumar,

No.11/2, Old Kasi Cross Road,

(Minerva Circle),

Doddamavalli,


170. Sri. M. Mahadevaiah,

Age 46 years,

Son of K. Muniyyappa ,

No.4, 4th Main, 12

th Cross,

Hanumagiri Nagar,

Padmanabha Nagar,


171. Sri. B. Santhappa,

Age 52 years,

Son of Late Subbaraya Gowda,

No.W-4, WMS Compound,

47th Cross, 9

th Main Road,

5th

Block, Jayanagar,


172. Sri. Prashanth Bhat,

Age 33years,

Son of B.G.Bhat,

No.005, “Sai Charitha Apartments”,

Nandanavanam Layout,

48

Vidyaranyapura Post,


173. Sri. Bhakthavatsala,

Age 42 years,

Son of Sri. Narayana,

G-4, Nanda Residence,

1st Mani Road,

Prashanth Nagar Extension,


174. Smt. Geetha Pai .M,

Wife of Sri. Suresh Pai .V,

Age 58 years, No.58,

Old No.68,

“Maha Maya”, 6th

Main,

2nd

Cross, 4th Block,

Thyagarajnagar,


175. Sri. B. Rabindra Bhat,

Son of Late Mukundaraya Bhat,

Age 71 years,

No.37, Kathyayani, 15th

Main,

17th Cross,

Padmanabhanagar,


176. Ramachandra Shanbhog,

Son of Late Seshagiri Shanbog,

Age 56 years, No.190,

2nd

Block, Sriram Road, Thyagarajanagar,


177. K.M.Boppaiah,

49


Son of Late K.J.Medappa,

Resident of No.120, Balachandra Layout,

II Cross, Babusapalya,

Kalyana Nagar,


178. Sri. K.G. Vallabha Ramu,

Aged about 57years,

Son of Late K. Gundu Rao,

Resident of No.576,

1st Main, Nagendra Block,

BSK 1st Stage,


179. Sri. K. Umesh Babu,


Son of Late K.V.Krishnappa,


1st Main Road,

Subramanyanagar,


180 Sri. K.Srinivasa Acharya,


Son of Late Venkataramana Acharya,

Resident of No.305,

7th

Main, 10th Cross, ISRO Layout,


181. Smt. Prabhavathi,

Aged 54 years,

Daughter of Ramachandraiah,


Cross,

Hanumanthanagar,

50


182. Sri. C.S. Nagarajan,


Son of C.S. Sreekantaiah,

Resident of No.252,

17th Main, II Cross,

II Block, BSK I Stage,


183. Smt. Bhavani,


D/o C.S.Shivaramaiah,

D/o Roop Kumar,

Resident of No.94-I,

8th

Cross Road, Rajamahal Vilas Extension,


184. Sri. M.V.Sreenivasa,


Son of Vijendra Rao,

Resident No.1/B,

6th

Cross, LIC Colony

(JPH), III Block East,

Jayanagar,


185. Smt. B.R. Manjulamba,

Aged about 32years,

Daughter of Ramachandraiah,

Resident of No.9

ST Street, Maruthi Nagar,

New Madiwala Extension,


51

186. Smt. G.K. Sowbhagya,


Daughter of Late G.N.Krishna Murthy,

Resident of No.523, 53rd

Cross,

3rd

Block, Rajajinagar,


187. Sri. N.L.Ravichandra,


Son of Late N.P.Lakshminathan,


13th Main, Mariyappanapalya,

II Stage, Rajajinagar,


188. Smt. B.R. Hamsaveni,


Wife of K.G. Vallabha Ramu,

Resident of No.576, 1st Floor,

Nagendra Block, Banashankari I Stage,


189. Smt. Kusuma Ramesh,

Aged about 50years,

Wife of Sri. U.K.Ramesh,


Main,

18th Cross,

Malleshwaram,


190. Sri. T.S. Jayaraman,


Son of Late T.N.Srinivas Murthy,

Resident of No.97-a,

First Floor, KGE Layout,

52

New BEL Road, Devasandra,


191. Sri. V. Subbaraya Holla,


Son of Late Krishna Holla,

Resident of No.309, Pramoda,

3rd

Cross, 6th

Main,

N.R.Colony,


192. Smt. T.D. Bharathi,


Wife of T.R.Dwarakanath,

Resident of No.34, Surveyor Street,

Basavanagudi,


193. Smt. Uma,

Aged about 38years,


7th

Main Road,

RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage,


194. Sri. Ramachandraiah .M,

Son of Sri. Ramalingaiah,

Aged about 62years,

Resident of No.25,

Doddamavalli,

Susheela Road, Anjaneya Temple Street,


195. Sri. B.S. Prashanth,


53

Son of D.R. Anantha Murthy,

Resident of No.43, 31st Main Road,

ITI Layout, J.P.Nagar, 1st Phase,


By his GPA holder

Sri. D.R.Ananthamurthy.

196. Sri. A.N. Anantha Murthy,


Son of Pandith A.N.Nagappa,

Resident of No.1960, Kamala,

Sri Shani Mahathma Temple Street,

BCCHS Layout,

Raghuvanahalli,

Kanakapura Road,


197. Sri. N.M. Srikanta,


Son of M. Mylaraiah,


“Varnita”, BCCHS Layout,

Raghuvanahalli,

Kanakapura Road,


198. Sri. N. Anantha Padmanabha,


Son of Late S. Narayana Rao,


“Gurukrupa”, Opp Ramaiah Garden,

BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalil,



54

199. Sri. H.S. Chandrashekar,


Son of Late H.N. Srinivasa Rao,

Resident of No.252, BCCHS Layout,

Vajarahalli,

Talaghattapura Post,

Kanakapura Road,


200. Sri. Malathesha Nadiger,


Son of Late Subba Bhatt Pujar,

Resident of No.261, BCCHS Layout,

Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road,


201. Sri. Padmanabha Shimanthur Rao,

Aged about 69years,

Son of Late S. Dasappayya,


BCCHS Layout,

Vajarahalli, off: Kanakapura Road,

Talaghattapura Post,


202. Smt. Dr. Revathi Rangaraj,


Wife of Dr. C.S.Rangaraj,

Resident of No.241,

BCCHS Layout,

Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road,


203. Sri. Hasmukhlal,

Aged about 38years,

55

Son of M. Chainraj,

Residing at No.6/1,

Ratna Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi,


204. Sri. C.Arun Kumar,

Aged about 49 yearse,

Son of m. Chainraj,

Residing at No.6/1,

Ratna Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi ,


205. Smt. Manju,

Aged about 44years,

Wife of Gajendra Singh,

Residing at No.18,

Lakshmi Road,

Shantinagar,


206. Sri. M. Mohanlal,


Son of Late M. Maniklal,

Residing at No.6/4, Ratna Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi,


207. Sri. Surendra Kumar,


Son of M. Kushalraj,

C/o. M.K.Electric Co.,

V.S.Lane, Chickpet,


56

208. Sri. K. Mahendra Kumar,


Son of M. Kushalraj,

C/o. M.K.Electric Co.,

V.S.Lane, Chickpet,


209. Smt. Pushpadevi Parakh,


Wife of Late Tarachan Parakh,

Residing at No.214, 1st Main,

“G”Cross, Sharada Colony,

Near Monkey Park,

Basaveshwaranagar,


210. Sri. Sathish Krishna Murthy,

Son of Late C.S.Krishna Murthy,


Residing at No.123, 5th

Main,

5th

Cross, Padmanabhanagar,


211. Sri. T.R.Shoba,

Wife of S.R.Sham,


Residing at No.17,

3rd

Cross, 6th

C Main,

Tata Silk Farm,


212. Smt. Meena S Singh,

Wife of Dr. B.K.Sadashiva Singh,

Aged about 51years,

57

Residing at No.759, Sri. Jayalakshmi Nivas,

100 feet Road, HAL 2nd

Stage,

Indiranagar,


213. Sri. Somashekar A.V.,

Son of Late A. Venkataramaiah,


No.145/C, I (N) Block,

5th

Cross, Rajajinagar,


214. Smt. Sharada Shankar,

Wife of Sri. Shankar,


No.9, ‘Belaku’,

4th

Cross, 1st Main,

Gauravanagar, J.P.Nagar,

7th

Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.

215. Smt. B.Shimsha,

Wife of Y.S. Naveen,


Residing at No.690/S,

12th Cross, 15

th Main,

J.P.Nagar,


216. Sri. Shashank,

Son of Sri. Brahmasuraiah,


No.4203, Anriaya Atrieus Apartments,

H.B.R. Layout, 5th Block,


…RESPONDENTS

58

(By Shri. Ananth .H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1

and 2

Shri. Madhusudhana R Naik, Senior Advocate for Shri. K. Shashi

Kiran Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.3

Shri. S. Sreevatsa, Advocate for Respondent No.4

Shri. K. Sreedhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 37,

Shri. K. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 38 to 40

Shri. B.A. Ramakrishna, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 41, 42,

177 to 209,

Shri. Ratnagiri Swamynathan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 43

to 70, 141 to 151, 163, 164, 210 and 211

Shri. H.S. Prakash, Advocate for Respondent No.71

Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 72 to 112,

114 to 140

Shri. Ashwin Kumar M.S., Advocate for Respondent No.113

Shri. Bharath .S, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 152 to 162

Shri. K.L. Ashok, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 165 to 173

Shri. B. Phalakshaiah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 174 to 176)

*****

These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to declare that the acquisition of

lands of the petitioners by Annexure-B vide final notification

dated 25.9.1989, the particulars of which are in the schedule to the

writ petition, are void and illegal and direct the respondents

forthwith to restore to the petitioners’ possession of the lands in

the schedule to the writ petition.

59

IN W.P.No.22445/2004

BETWEEN:

Chikkaveerappa,

Son of Channappa,



J.P.Nagar 9th

Phase,

Bangalore – 560 062. …PETITIONER

(By Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate )

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,

Represented by its Secretary to

The Government, Revenue Department,

M.S.Buildings,



2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Visveshwaraiah Mini Tower,



3. The Bangalore City Co-operative Housing

Society Limited,

Represented by its Secretary,

Seethapathi Agrahara,

Chamarajapet,


60

4. The Commissioner,

Bangalore Development Authority,

Bangalore.

5. Sri. K.R. Kiran,

Son of Sri. Ramakrishnappa,


Residing at Near Government School,

Vajrahalli,

Uttarahalli Hobli,


(Amended vide court order

Dated 22.09.2010)

6. Sri. Satish Krishnamurthy,

Son of Late C.S. Krishnamurthy,


Residing at No.123,

5th

Main, 5th Cross,

Padmanabhanagar,


(Amended vide court order

Dated 25.3.2013)

….RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Anantha .H, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1

and 2

Shri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.3

Shri. K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.4

Shri. K. Sreedhar, Advocate for respondent No.5

M/s. Just law , for Respondent No.6)

61

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary

notification dated 23.8.1988 issued under Section 4(1) and

published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 1.9.1988 as per

Annexure-A and notification issued under Section 6(1) of the

Land Acquisition Act bear dated 25.9.1989 published in the

Karnataka Gazette dated 1.9.1988 as per Annexure-B and direct

the respondents to maintain status quo and not to alter the nature

and position of schedule property.

These petitions, having been heard and reserved on

08/01/2014 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,

the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common

order as the same are filed on the same grounds under the same set

of circumstances.

2. The petitioners in the first of these petitions claim that

they are owners of individual parcels of lands and some claim to

be joint owners of certain items of lands of Vajrahalli, Bangalore

South Taluk.

62

It is stated that by a notification dated 23.8.1988, issued

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter

referred to as the ‘LA Act’, for brevity), the lands owned by the

petitioners were notified for acquisition for the purpose of

providing house sites for the members of the Bangalore City Co-

operative Housing Society Ltd., the third respondent, herein. It is

claimed that the objections filed by the petitioners was overruled

and a Declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act came to be

made on 25.9.1989. The same was said to have been followed by

an Award, dated 23.6.1990. It is alleged that the petitioners were

never paid the compensation amount and that the same has also

not shown to have been deposited with the Treasury. It is also

claimed that the possession of the lands of each of the petitioners,

has been retained by them and that it is falsely claimed to have

been taken by the respondent Society, through an agent.

It is stated that some of the land owners had challenged the

acquisition proceedings before this court. Two such writ

petitions were in WP 10406/1991 and WP 16419/1992. The

63

petition in WP 16419/1992 was said to have been dismissed on

the ground of delay. The petitioner therein having challenged the

said order in appeal, in WA 9913/1996, the Division Bench is said

to have allowed the appeal, inter-alia, on the ground that the

acquisition of the lands could not be said to have been made for a

public purpose as the mandatory requirement of Section 3(f)(vi) of

the LA Act had not been complied with, by judgment dated

16.3.1998. In the result the entire acquisition proceedings having

been quashed, the same was said to have enured to the benefit of

the petitioners, in respect of their lands as well. However, the

third respondent - Society having sought a review of the

judgment, it was said to have been clarified that the judgment was

restricted to the case of the appellants in those appeals, by an order

dated 9.7.1999.

It is stated that the third respondent - Society had

challenged the judgment passed in the appeal in WA 9913/1996,

before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.7452-7426 /2002.

64

The other petition, in WP 10406/1991, referred to herein

above was said to have been allowed by a learned single judge on

the preliminary ground that a Division Bench of this court had

held that the Karnataka Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and

Amendment) Act, 1961, stood impliedly repealed by the

amendment of the Central Act, vide Act 68 of 1984. The same

having been challenged in appeal in WA 4246/1998 by the

Society, during the pendency of the appeal it was declared by a

Full Bench of this court that the law laid down by a Division

Bench , which had been followed by the single judge in the above

petition, was not good law, following the dictum of the Supreme

Court in Kanaka Gruha Nirman Samathi v. Narayanamma , AIR

2002 SCW 4305. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench

which was seized of the matter in WA 4246/1998, was requested

to address the matter on merits instead of remanding the matter to

the learned single judge. The matter having been heard on merits

the acquisition proceedings were quashed by a judgment dated

65

6.2.2004. It was held that the entire process of acquisition was

vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power.

It is the case of the petitioners that the cause of action to

invoke the jurisdiction of this court arose on 6.2.2004 when this

court declared that the acquisition pursuant to the impugned

notifications are vitiated by fraud and abuse of power. And that

the final declaration dated 25.9.1989 could not be held against the

petitioners for the reason that vitiating factors were judicially

recognized and disapproved in the judgment in WA 4246/1998

rendered on 6.2.2004.

It is urged that the Supreme Court of India in the case of

Bangalore City Co-operative House Building Society v. State of

Karnataka & others, (2012) 3 SCC 727 (hereinafter referred to as the

“BCC Case” for brevity), has declared that the entire acquisition

proceedings that are the subject matter of these petitions, are void and

illegal and hence, the petitioners are entitled to restoration of

possession of their lands. And that this court should apply the ratio of

that judgment and grant the consequential relief.

66

3. In WP 22445/2004, the petitioner claims to be the owner

of land bearing Survey no.17/1, 19/1 and 20 measuring 19 acres

and 33 guntas of Raghuvanahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is

stated that the petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition

(SLP), aggrieved by the Order passed in the review petition filed

by the respondent - Society, in CP 366/1998, whereby it was

clarified that the judgment rendered in WA 9913/1996 was

restricted to the appellants therein. The said SLP filed by the

petitioner was said to have been rejected. However, the petitioner

having been permitted to approach this court for redressal of his

grievance , the present petition is filed.

The very same contentions as urged in the first of these

petitions are canvassed on behalf of the petitioner.

The first of these writ petitions was dismissed by a learned

single judge on 13.4.2004, on the ground of delay and laches.

However, in an appeal filed against the said order, a Division

Bench had, by its judgment dated 14.10.2004, set aside the order

67

and remanded the matter with a direction that the explanation

offered by the petitioners as regards the delay be considered and

an order be passed on merits. Now in view of the judgment in

BCC Case, it is canvassed that the entire acquisition proceedings

having been quashed, the need for any further adjudication is

redundant and that the petitioners are routinely entitled to the

benefit of the judgment and hence the petitions are only to be

formally allowed in terms of the said judgment and that the

petitioners are to be put back in possession of their lands.

4. It is hence necessary to firstly take stock of the content

of the BCC case, in addressing the case of the petitioners as well

as the respondents. The appeals before the Apex court involved

two sets of judgments and orders passed by the Division Benches

of this court in (i) WA 9913/1996 (Geeta Devi Shah v. State ) and

Civil Petition 366/1998 ( Bangalore City Co-op. Housing Society

Ltd. v. Geeta Devi Shah) (Civil Appeals 7425 -26/2002) and

68

(ii)WA 4246/1998 (Bangalore City Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v.

State ( P. Ramaiah) ) and WA 6039/1998 (State v. P.Ramaiah and

others (Civil Appeals 774- 78 / 2005).

The following facts were taken note of, apart from other

circumstances in the said appeals.

The notification for acquisition of lands, issued under

Section 4(1) of the LA Act, dated 23.8.1988, was for the

acquisition of 201 acres 17 guntas of land including the land

comprised in Survey no.49 and 50/1 belonging to one Smt.Geetha

Devi Shah, who was a respondent in one of the appeals and the

land bearing Survey nos.7/1 and 8/1 belonging to the predecessor

of P. Ramaiah, Munnikrishna and others (Respondents 3 to 7 in

Civil Appeals 774-78/2005).

The above said respondents had filed their objections to the

acquisition. However, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA

Act was issued on 25.9.1989.

The details of the litigation before the High Court, as

narrated by the Supreme court itself is as follows :

69

“Details of the litigation before the High Court

A. Smt.Geetha Devi Shah case.

32. Respondent 3 challenged the acquisition of

her land comprised in Survey No.49 in Writ Petition

No.16419/1992. The appellant also filed Writ Petition

No.29603 of 1994 questioning the legality of notification

issued under Section 48(1). By two separate orders

dated 18.11.1996, the learned Single Judge dismissed

both the writ petitions. The writ petition filed by

respondent 3 was dismissed only on the ground of 2½

years' delay between the issue of the declaration under

Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act and filing of the writ

petition. The explanation given by Respondent No. 3 that

on her representations, the Government had withdrawn

the acquisition of land comprised in Survey No.50/2 and

she was awaiting the Government's decision in respect

of other parcel of land, was not considered satisfactory

by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition of the

appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by

observing that the State Government has absolute power

to withdraw the acquisition before the possession of the

acquired land can be taken.

33. Respondent 3 challenged the order of the

learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.9913/1996. The

Division Bench of the High Court first considered the

question whether the learned Single Judge was right in

70

dismissing the writ petition only on the ground of delay

and answered the same in negative by making the

following observations:

“After hearing the rival contentions of the

appellant and contesting respondent and perusing the

pleadings of both the parties, we are of the opinion that

the learned Single Judge has erred in taking into

consideration the delay of 2½ years from the date of

final notification. The learned Single Judge has not

considered the explanation given by the petitioner at

paras 12 to 15 wherein, he has explained regarding

delay. The State Government has issued notice dated

6.1.1990 of inspection of lands proposed to be held at

10.30 a.m. on 16.8.1990 and the Land Acquisition

Officer conducted spot inspection and satisfied that the

lands could be deleted and further another notice dated

6.2.1990 of fixing the inspection of the spot on 9.2.1990

was received, in pursuance of the same spot inspection

was held and one more notice dated 7.3.1990, 11.5.1990

(sic) on those days inspection was not made.

Thereafterwards, he submitted the petition to the

Revenue Secretary. His enquiries with the Revenue

Secretary revealed the proceedings bearing No. RD 294

AQB 90 dated 5.10.1991. One Mr. N.Lokraj, Under

Secretary to the Government called for reports on the

matter vide Notification dated 29.1.1992. Therefore, the

grievance of the petitioner was pending consideration

71

before the Government under Section 15A of the Land

Acquisition Act as on 29.1.1992. In this regard, we have

perused the record produced by the Government. These

facts with reference to the denotification of the

acquisition in respect of the land in question along with

other lands are reflected therein. Further the

explanation offered by the appellant at paragraph 15 in

the writ petition clearly shows the bona fides on the part

of the appellant in the matter of challenging the

acquisition proceedings, as he had submitted the

representation to the Revenue Department seeking for

denotification of the land in question. In our opinion the

delay with regard to the challenge of the proceedings

has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Therefore, non-consideration of the explanation and

rejection of the petition by the learned Single Judge

solely on the ground of delay and latches cannot be

sustained. Moreover relief cannot be denied to a party

merely on the ground of delay. In fact, in view of the

subsequent events after the final notification, it cannot

be said that the appellant has approached this Court

belatedly.”

34. The Division Bench then scrutinized records

relating to the acquisition of land, relied upon the

judgment in H.M.T. House Building Coop Society v.

Syed Khader, (1995) 2 SCC 677 (Hereinafter described

as `Ist HMT Case') and held:

72

“It is a mandatory requirement in law, since no

prior approval of the scheme has been obtained by the

second respondent from the State Government, the first

respondent herein, the acquisition by the first

respondent cannot be held to be for public purpose as

the mandatory requirement as contemplated under

Section 3(f)(vi) has not been complied with. Hence the

acquisition proceedings have to be held as invalid, and

on this ground the acquisition proceedings are liable to

be quashed. In its counter at paragraph (sic) it has not

positively stated with regard to the fact of prior approval

of the scheme as required under Section 3(f)(vi) of the

Act is granted by the Government. On the other hand,

what is stated by the second respondent at paragraph 5

of the counter is that the said society had submitted

necessary scheme to the first respondent for the purpose

of initiating acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1)

of the Act. The acquisition proceedings were to be

initiated after fully satisfying the requirement under

Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of

the learned Counsel for the respondent that the

acquisition proceedings are in accordance with law,

cannot be accepted in the absence of specific, positive

assertion and proof in this regard. The burden is on the

first and second respondents to show that there is prior

approval of the housing scheme to initiate the

acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in

question. The same is not established. In this view of the

73

matter and in view of the law declared by the Apex court

in 1st H.M.T. case, we have no option but to hold that

there is no housing scheme approved by the State

Government. Hence on this ground the acquisition

proceedings are liable to be quashed.”

The Division Bench also opined that the Special

Land Acquisition Officer had submitted report without

giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3 and

this was sufficient to nullify the acquisition of her land.

35. Civil Petition No.366/1998 filed by the

appellant for review of judgment dated 16.3.1998

(Geetha Devi Shah vs. State, Writ Appeal No.9913/1996)

was dismissed by the Division Bench by observing that

once the Government had issued notification under

Section 48(1) nothing survives for consideration.

36.Writ Appeal No.1459/1997 filed by the

appellant against the negation of its challenge to

notification issued under Section 48(1) was dismissed by

the Division Bench vide judgment dated 12.3.1998

(Bangalore City Coop Housing Society Ltd. vs. State)

along with other similar writ appeals and writ petition.

B. Shri P. Ramaiah and others case.

37. Shri P. Ramaiah and others also challenged

the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition

No.10406/1991. The learned Single Judge allowed the

74

writ petition by relying upon the order dated 15.6.1998

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in

Naveen Jayakumar vs. State, Writ Petition Nos. 3539-

42/1996, wherein it was held that after the amendment

of the 1894 Act by Act No.68 of 1984, the Deputy

Commissioner did not have the authority to issue

notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act.

38. The appellant challenged the order of the

learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.4246/1998. The

State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition

Officer also filed Writ Appeal No.6039/1998. The

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the

appeals by common judgment dated 6.2.2004. The

Division Bench referred to the judgment of this Court in

1st H.M.T. case and held that the acquisition was

vitiated due to adoption of corrupt practice by the

appellant, which had engaged an agent for ensuring the

acquisition of land and large amounts of money changed

hands in the process.

39. When the learned counsel for Shri P.

Ramaiah and other respondents pointed out that there

were certain errors in the judgment dated 6.2.2004

inasmuch as Smt.Geetha Devi Shah's case has been

referred to instead of the citation of H.M.T. House

Building Cooperative Society v. Syed Khader, the

Division Bench suo motu corrected the errors vide order

dated 11.2.2004.

75

40. Review Petitions Nos.166 and 170 of 2004

filed by the appellant were dismissed by another

Division Bench of the High Court which declined to

entertain the appellant's plea that the issues raised by

Shri P. Ramaiah and others are covered by the judgment

of the High Court in Subramani v. Union of India, ILR

1995 KAR 3139 and that in view of the dismissal of

SLPs(C) Nos.12012-17/1997 filed against the order

passed in Writ Appeals Nos.7953-62/1996 - Byanna v.

State of Karnataka, the order passed by the Division

Bench was liable to be set aside. The Division Bench

held that the judgment in P. Ramaiah's case does not

suffer from any error apparent requiring its review.”

The apex court has then referred to the grounds of challenge

and the arguments canvassed and has noticed that the appellant

had challenged the impugned judgments on several grounds which

mostly related to the case of Geeta Devi Shah – and proceeded to

address the same.

The first ground that the writ petition was barred by delay

and laches is dealt with at paragraphs 42 to 57 of the above

judgment.

76

The second ground urged was that the acquisition

proceedings could not have been nullified on account of non-

compliance with Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894. This is dealt with from paragraph 58 to 89, in coming to the

conclusion that no housing scheme was framed by the appellant,

which was held to be the sine qua non for treating the acquisition

of land for a co-operative society as an acquisition for public

purpose within the meaning of Section 3(f).

In further addressing a contention of the appellant that the

2nd HMT case (HMT House Building Co-op Society v.

M.Venkataswamappa, (1995) 3 SCC 128), was not followed in

other similar cases, was addressed at length with reference to the

particular cases – from paragraph 90 to 113 to conclude as

follows:

“ Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the

appellant’s case is squarely covered by the ratio of 1st

HMT and 2nd HMT cases and the High Court did not

commit any error by relying upon the judgment in 1st

HMT case for declaring that the acquisition was not for a

public purpose.”

77

Another facet of the challenge was a contention that even if

there was no express approval by the State Government to the

acquisition of land, the approval will be deemed to have been

granted because the State Government had contributed Rs.100

Crore towards the acquisition of land. That was negated in

paragraphs 115 to 119.

After dealing with three ancillary grounds of challenge in

paragraphs 121 to 126, at paragraphs 127 and 128, it is recorded

that the Senior Advocates appearing for the appellants had sought

to bring it to the attention of the Court that the appellant had

already spent Rs.18.73 crore for the formation of the layout and

1791 plots were allotted to the members, out of which, 200 have

already constructed their houses. It was pointed out that 50% of

the land had been handed over to the BDA for providing civic

amenities and 16154 square feet had been handed over to the

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. It was

hence contended that it was a fit case to invoke the doctrine of

78

prospective overruling so that those who had already constructed

houses may not suffer incalculable harm.

While negating the contention that it was a fit case to

invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling, dismissed the

appeals with the following directions:-

“133. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

However, keeping in view the fact that some of the

members of the appellant may have built their houses

on the sits allotted to them, we give liberty to the

appellant to negotiate with the respondents for

purchase of their land at the prevailing market price

and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the

judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to

accept the market price so that those who have built the

houses may not suffer.

134. At the same time, we make it clear that the

appellant must return the vacant land to the

respondents irrespective of the fact that it may have

carved out the sites and allotted the same to its

members. This must be done within a period of three

months from today and during that period the appellant

shall not change the present status of the vacant

area/sites. The members of the appellant who may have

been allotted the sites shall also not change the present

79

status/character of the land. The parties are left to

bear their own costs.”

It is evident that the Court while granting liberty to the

appellant -Society ‘to negotiate with the respondents’- (for purchase

of their land) and hoping that ‘the land owners will, notwithstanding

the judgments of the High Court and this court, agree to accept the

market price….etc’, was apparently referring to the respondent- land

owners, Geeta Devi Shah and P.Ramaiah, only. (emphasis supplied)

It is to be noticed that the appeals having been dismissed by the

apex court, the judgments of the Division benches of the High Court

were thus affirmed. In the both the sets of appeals the High Court had

restricted the judgment to the case of the petitioners. This position was

specifically clarified in a review petition in Geeta Devi Shah’s case. In

P.Ramaiah’s case the Division Bench which decided the petition on

merits has held thus in the operative portion of the judgment:

“ In this view of the matter, we quash and set

aside the present acquisition. The petition is allowed with

costs. We direct that if petitioners have been divested

from the possession of the lands that the same will have to

be restored to them forthwith. As a necessary

consequence, it would be equally necessary that if the

petitioners have received any compensation that the same

will have to be refunded by them.

80

11. In the special facts and circumstances of this

case while we have already held that the appeals stands

allowed, we also need to hold that we allow the original

petition with costs. “

The fact that the Apex Court has referred to the plea on behalf of

the appellants of the formation of the ‘layouts’ (sic) at phenomenal

expense and of allotment of 1791 plots and to the fact of 200 of such

allottees having constructed their houses on those plots and large

extents of other areas having been handed over to civic authorities for

provision of amenities- is not to be construed as being the subject

matter of the contemplation, and directions issued, at paragraphs 133

and 134 of the judgment of the apex court.

The judgment has not referred to the extent of land of the respective

respondents in the appeals. The respective lands, of the respondents

therein, are only identified with reference to the survey numbers

assigned to the same. It is to be kept in view that Geeta Devi Shah was

claiming as the owner of 7 acres and 39 guntas of land in Survey no. 49

and 1 acre 4 guntas in Survey no.50/2 of Vajrahalli and that the other

land owner, P. Ramaiah, was laying claim to 29 guntas of land, bearing

Survey No.8/1 and 1 acre of land, bearing Survey No.7/1 of Vajrahalli.

It is thus evident that the appellant - Society was apparently pleading

on behalf of a substantial number of members who may have been

allotted plots and who had built houses on the lands of the above

81

respondent - land owners, while incidentally referring to the aspects of

the overall cost, development and other circumstances.

Hence it is clear that the above judgment of the apex court does

not lay down, or even imply, that all the land owners including the

petitioners herein, who claim to be land owners, should, ipso facto, be

put in possession of their lands – by virtue of the above judgment, or by

virtue of the judgments of this Court, which have been affirmed by the

same.

5. On the other hand, the first of these petitions was dismissed

by a learned single judge as being barred by delay and laches, the same

having been challenged by way of an appeal, the Division Bench by its

judgment dated 14.10.2004 remanded the matter with a direction that

the petitioners’ case be considered with reference to the

explanation offered to justify the belated challenge to the

acquisition proceedings.

It has been contended that the cumulative explanation is to

be found at paragraphs 4 to 7 of the writ petition, to the effect that

the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in WA

82

4246/1998 (Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society vs.

State) and WA 9913/1996 (Smt.Gita Devi Shah vs. The State), was

the law declared – which applied to all the lands notified under the

impugned notifications. The relevant paragraphs are extracted

hereunder for ready reference:

“5. That, the notifications Annexures A & B

have been quashed by the judgment in

W.A.No.9913/1996 (Annexure-C) and by the

judgment dated 6.2.2004 in W.A.No.4246/1998

(Annexure-E) is a matter of record. The former

quashed the entire acquisition, though by a later order

it was confined to the appellant therein.

Notwithstanding the findings recorded in the

aforesaid judgment, more particularly the finding that

the acquisition by Annexures A & B are vitiated by

fraud and by abuse of statutory power, the rights of

the petitioners in the lands owned by them, which are

notified in Annexure-B have not been restored and

the property rightfully owned by them are under the

dark shadow of acquisition. Though the acquisition

of lands owned by persons similarly situated are

quashed, the clog on the right, title and interest of the

petitioners is not removed, which in effect is

unreasonable restriction of the petitioners’ rights

83

conferred by Articles 14,19 and Article 300A of the

Constitution.

6. The petitioners are aggrieved in that they

have been arbitrarily discriminated and denied by the

State Government the restoration of their rights in the

properties notified in Annexure “B”. The petitioners

are constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court for the relief hereinafter set out.

7. The cause of action for the petitioners to

invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court arose on

6.2.2004 when this Hon’ble Court declared i) that the

present acquisition proceedings are illegal by reason

of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

H.M.T.case ii) that the judgment in Writ Appeal

9913/1996 (Annexure-C), which relates to the present

acquisition, is binding on the respondents therein,

who were the respondent in W.A.9913/1996 and iii)

that the acquisition pursuant to Annexures A & B is

vitiated by fraud and abuse of power. That Annexure

‘B’ is dated 25.9.1989 cannot be held against the

petitioners for the reason that the vitiating factors

were judicially recognized and disapproved in the

judgment in Writ Appeal 4246 of 1998 (Annexure E)

rendered on 6.2.2004. Further, prior notice is not

required for the reason the judgments of the Hon’ble

Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeals are notice to the

State Government and the Housing Society that the

84

law declared and laid down applies to all properties

notified by Annexure-B, the final notification.”

6. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the ratio

of the judgments would apply to the case of the petitioners,

irrespective of every other circumstance, including delay if any, as

the illegality pervading the entire acquisition proceedings is

judicially recognized and disapproved. It is also contended that

this position is fully endorsed and settled by the latest judgment of

the apex court in the BCC Case, in respect of the very acquisition

proceedings.

However, there is no acceptable explanation offered in the

pleadings, except the emphasis on the contention that in view of

the subsequent decision of the apex court, supra, having declared

the acquisition as illegal, it would not be necessary to dwell on the

explanation for the delay if any, on the part of the petitioners, in

challenging the acquisition proceedings.

85

The petitioners can hardly take advantage of a decision

rendered at the instance of a diligent litigant, whose petition was

not vitiated by delay. It is not possible to overlook the fact that

the petitioners are placed at the threshold, in firstly having been

relegated to the stage of offering an acceptable explanation for the

delay and laches, as required in terms of the order of remand. The

petitioners are to explain the delay in approaching this court on

12.4.2004, when the decision in Geeta Devi Shah’s case was

rendered as early as in the year 1998. Unfortunately , there is no

attempt at any such explanation.

The apex court has time and again recognized the disastrous

consequences any inferential conclusions being drawn, nullifying

the entire acquisition proceedings, on the basis of an order passed

at the instance of a particular land owner. (See: TN Housing Board

v. L. Chandrashekaran ( 2010) 2 SCC 786 ; Shyamnandan Prasad

v. State of Bihar; (1999)4 SCC 255; Abhey Ram vs. Union of

India, (1997)5 SCC 421; Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh

Uban and others, (2000)7 SCC 296).

86

The further contention on behalf of the petitioners, as to the

case being sustained on the strength of the reasoning of the Apex

Court in the First HMT case and the line of cases to which the

ratio had been applied, is also not tenable. For it would have to be

reconciled with the circumstance that in the First HMT case, the

challenge was brought even at the stage of the preliminary

notification, and even though there was no question of possession

of the lands having been taken, it was directed that the lands shall

be restored to the respective land owners, irrespective of the fact

whether such land owners had challenged the acquisition

proceedings or not. It is to be noticed that despite such a

declaration as to the entire acquisition proceedings being vitiated

in circumstances such as were present in the First HMT case and

similar batch of cases, when a subsequent challenge was made in

respect of acquisitions for the very Society in Hanumakka and

Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others in WP 42784/1995 and

connected cases, alleging identical circumstances, the petition

87

was summarily dismissed by order dated 14.6.1996 on the ground

of delay and laches. The same was affirmed by a decision bench

in Writ Appeal No.7122-7134/1996, 1999(4) KLJ 194 and the

same having been carried to the Supreme Court by way of a

Special Leave Petitions in SLP 23256-23268/1996, the same were

dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Further, it is shown that in a writ petition before this court

in WP 14863/2001, Hastimal Sisodia v. The State of Karnataka, it

was contended that the petitioner would have the benefit of the

declaration of the acquisition proceedings against the present

respondent Society having been declared to be bad. The said

petition was however, dismissed on the ground of delay of more

than twelve years. An appeal against the said order had been

dismissed on 20.6.2011 (WA 3057/2004). The contentions as

regards fraud and the want of compliance with Section 3(f)(vi) of

the LA Act, is specifically noticed therein. It is also significant

that a review petition had been preferred – pursuant to the decision

of the BCC case – and the same has also been dismissed by an

order dated 22.6.2012. It transpires that the same was carried to

the Apex Court by way of a Special Leave Petition – but appears

to have been withdrawn.

88

Hence, it is pertinent to note that the appeals decided by the

Apex Court related to land owners, who had challenged the

acquisition proceedings immediately and were not vitiated by

delay and laches, as noticed by the Apex Court itself in the BCC

case, in so far as it pertains to Geeta Devi Shah.

7. In the light of the above, it is not possible to accept the

case of the petitioners that the judgment in the BCC case should

be extended to them in seeking recovery of possession of their

lands.

Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners have

brought to the attention of this bench a decision rendered in a writ

petition in WP 6283/2008, Bangalore City Co-operative Housing

Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, dated

22.12.2013. It is to be noticed on the facts of that case that the

present respondent Society had challenged the State government’s

action in having sought to withdraw from the acquisition

89

proceedings in respect of land belonging to respondents (5(a) to

(e), therein. The challenge was primarily sought to be sustained

on the ground that the reasoning of the State government in

issuing the notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act,

proceeded on the basis that there were no documents available to

evidence the handing over and taking over of the land in question

pursuant to the acquisition proceedings - it was contended that

such a stand was not tenable as there was reference made to the

relevant records pertaining to the factum of having taken

possession, in earlier proceedings before this court pertaining to

the very respondents’ lands. It was then contended on behalf of

the respondents therein that the petition itself was rendered

infructuous in view of the entire acquisition proceedings having

been held to be void in the Bangalore City Housing case.

The proposition that the acquisition proceedings was bad in

law in so far as the present respondent Society was concerned,

was available to the respondent land owners therein, as the

question of delay and laches in questioning the acquisition

90

proceedings was not at all in issue. The observation made by the

undersigned that the respondent land owners therein, could

reclaim their land de hors the impugned order therein, by virtue of

the entire acquisition proceedings being held to be vitiated, is

without reference to the nuances that are brought to light in the

present proceedings, vis-à-vis the land owners and the grounds of

challenge to the acquisition proceedings, as well as the tenability

of the petitioners seeking to sustain the petitions inspite of their

unsuccessful petitions earlier or some of them having acquiesced

in the proceedings by receiving compensation and hence, cannot

be cited as supporting a case of every land owner being enabled to

recover possession of land that was subject matter of the said

acquisition proceedings.

In view of the above, the further facts and circumstances

highlighted by the respondent –Society as regards the several

petitioners being precluded from filing the present petition in view

of earlier proceedings brought them having attained finality or

having acquiesced in the proceedings and the petitioners also

91

being guilty of suppression of facts, is not dealt with, though

noticed, as it would only add to the reasons on which the

petitioners could be denied any relief and as the same would not

advance their case at all.

The petitions are accordingly dismissed.

In view of the petitions being dismissed, it is not necessary

to implead the applicants in IA 23/2013 and IA 1/2014.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv*

in the high court of karnataka at bangalore...

Documents