Petitioners challenged BDA land acquisition notifications from 1978 and 1985, seeking declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013. Counsel absent; petitioners failed to explain inordinate delay and were subsequent purchasers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 10784 OF 2018 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SITE NO. 38,
NEW NO. 469/188/38/1 8TH MAIN ROAD, TEACHERS COLONY, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 084
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1.,
SRI.K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R.3.,)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.BDA/ALA0/S-11/78-79 DATED 27.06.1978 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTED DATED 20.07.1978 AND WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY WAY OF ISSUE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.HUD/567/MNX/84 DATED 09.01.1985 AND PUBLISHED IN
KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 14.03.1985, VIDE ANNEXURES-J AND K HAVE RESPECTIVELY LAPSED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 24 (2) OF THE RIGHT OF FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (CENTRAL ACT NO.30 OF 2013), AND CONSEQUENTLY ANNEXURE-J AND K HAVE BECOME INOPERATIVE, IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELOW DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:31461 WP No. 10784 of 2018
submits that the acquisition is challenged by a subsequent
purchaser and for that reason also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
who was the land owner at the time of the acquisition.
Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
1 issue framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 despite 1978/1985 notifications
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr A Mohammed Siddiqh
Mrs. Hashmathunnisa
Mr. S Mohammed Ibrahim
Mr. Mohammed Idris
Mr. Mohammed Iiyas
The State of Karnataka
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
