Dismissed¶63

Smt Mary John v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025WA/1525/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB acquisition challenge barred: earlier award prayer WP.No.8280/2013 (confirmed in WA.No.697/2014) treated as implied concession to acquisition; withdrawal of WP.Nos.12931-932/2011 bars later challenge to notifications dated 03.11.2006 and 07.05.2007 under KIAD Act 1966; compensation claim requires independent proof of title; impersonation dispute left to pending criminal proceedings; W.A. No.1525/2023 rejected, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Challenging the acquisition notifications after dismissal of WP.No.8280/2013 (prayer for passing of an award) and its confirmation in WA.No.697/2014 is impermissible, as the appellant implicitly conceded to the acquisition proceedings by seeking the award relief and cannot turn around and challenge the acquisition. ¶60

Smt Mary John Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant can challenge the preliminary and final notifications dated 03.11.2006 and 07.05.2007 issued under the KIAD Act and seek deletion of her land from the acquisition, after having earlier sought an award and compensation (WP.No.8280/2013, dismissed and confirmed in WA.No.697/2014) and after withdrawing WP.Nos.12931-932/2011. +2 more

¶55

Court's answer

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings in a later petition after withdrawal of her earlier petition WP.Nos.12931-932/2011 challenging the same acquisition.

¶60

Key takeaways

Insofar as entitlement to compensation is concerned, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant should establish her title and lay claim for compensation; no error or perversity is found in that finding.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (per Vijaykumar A. Patil J., with Anu Sivaraman J.), High Court of Karnataka, rejects W.A. No.1525/2023 (LA-KIADB) by Smt. Mary John, owner of 4 acres in Sy.No.74/302, Bandikodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk, against the Single Judge's order dated 07.11.2023 in W.P.No.20679/2021 dismissing her challenge to the KIADB preliminary and final notifications dated 03.11.2006 and 07.05.2007 under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Held: (i) a challenge to the acquisition notifications is impermissible after the appellant's earlier prayer for an award under Section 29(3) KIAD Act (WP.No.8280/2013, dismissed 05.02.2014, confirmed in WA.No.697/2014, 19.08.2021), as seeking the award implicitly conceded the acquisition; (ii) no fresh challenge is permissible after withdrawal of WP.Nos.12931-932/2011; (iii) on compensation, the appellant must establish title and lay claim separately - the respondents' affidavit dated 05.12.2025 records that the award was passed and compensation received by Smt.Mary John, with criminal proceedings pending on her allegation of withdrawal by an impersonator. Appeal rejected; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1525/2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MARY JOHN AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS D/O LATE K.P. PAUL W/O LATE JOHN THOMAS R/AT FLAT NO.004 Digitally signed HEBRON APARTMENTS by RUPA V NO.57, BENSON CROSS ROAD Location: High BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560046. Court Of Karnataka

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N. ADV.,)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (B.M.I.C.P) NO.3/2, KHENY BUILDING IST CROSS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

HC-KAR

GANDHINAGAR

BANGALORE-560009.

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MEMBER RASHTROTHANA BUILDING N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

ITASCA SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO. 20, 18TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560003.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WP No.20679/2021 DATED 07.11.2023 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶33

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20679/2021 (LA-KIADB).

¶34

Sri.P.N Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is the owner of the land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.74/302 of Bandikodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk. The said property was purchased by the appellant on 02.02.1995, the revenue records were mutated in her name and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is submitted that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and cancelled the entries made in favour of the appellant vide order dated 01.04.2009. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed WP.No.15030/2009. The

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.05.2011 set aside the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the matter was remanded back. After remand, the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act was dropped. It is contended that the respondent KIADB acquired the land and no compensation was paid. It is further contended that the order passed in WP.No.8280/2013 is without considering the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner was dropped, which makes it clear that the appellant has clear title over the property. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the relief for passing of the award and payment of compensation was rejected by this Court on earlier round only because the proceedings were pending before the revenue authorities. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order failed to take note of the said fact and ought to have entertained the petition challenging the acquisition proceedings by allowing the writ petition by

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

declaring that the acquisitions are lapsed in view of non passing of the award and non payment of compensation to the appellant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶41

Per contra , Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned

¶42

counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supports the impugned order and submits that the appellant in earlier round of litigation sought a prayer for passing of the award

¶43

and payment of compensation, which was not granted. The appeal field by the appellant was dismissed and now he cannot turn around and challenge the acquisition proceedings as the same is impermissible. It is submitted that the challenge to the notifications is hit by delay and laches as the petitioner is well aware about the issuance of the notifications and on this ground also appeal is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the compensation is paid to the one Smt.Mary John as evident from the affidavit filed by the land acquisition officer. However, the appellant is contending that by impersonating her, the compensation amount has been withdrawn and such issue

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

cannot be gone into in this appeal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides.

¶48

The material on record indicates that the appellant is the owner of the land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.74/302 of Bandikodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk. The said property was purchased by the appellant on 02.02.1995, the revenue records were mutated in her name and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said land was initially granted to one late Sri.Nanjappa for an upset price and saguvali chit was issued in 1961. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act in respect of the land in question and

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

passed an order against the appellant. The order of the Special Deputy Commissioner was assailed in WP.No.15030/2009 which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Special Deputy Commissioner. After remand, the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act were dropped.

¶52

The records further indicate that the respondent issued preliminary and final notifications dated 03.11.2006 and 07.05.2007 respectively under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the KIAD Act'). It is to be noticed that the appellant has challenged the said notifications in WP.Nos.12931-932/2011 and the said writ petition came to withdrawn on 05.08.2011. The appellant filed WP.No.8280/2013 seeking prayer to direct the respondent authorities to pass an award under Section 29(3) of the KIAD Act for the land in question which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2014. The appellant assailed the order of the learned Single Judge in

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

WA.No.697/2014, which also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed WP.No.20679/2021 challenging the preliminary and final notifications dated 03.11.2006 and 07.05.2007 respectively issued under the provisions of the KIAD Act and further prayer to delete the land in question from the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge considering the law on the point held that there cannot be any challenge to the acquisition proceedings as the appellant had earlier sought for compensation and dismissed the writ petition.

¶56

The chronology of events referred supra clearly

¶57

indicates that the appellant challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act which has ended in dropping of the suo moto proceedings initiated against the appellant. The writ petition in WP.No.8280/2013 filed seeking prayer to pass an award was dismissed on 05.02.2014 which was confirmed in WA.No.697/2014 vide order dated 19.08.2021. Now challenging the notifications issued for acquisition after

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

dismissal of the writ petitions referred supra is impermissible as the appellant implicitly conceded to the acquisition proceedings by seeking relief for passing an award and now she cannot turn around and challenge the acquisition proceedings. Another aspect to be noticed is that the appellant initially filed WP.No.12931-932/2011 challenging the acquisition proceedings and the said writ petition was withdrawn. The appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings after withdrawal of the earlier petition in a later petition. The affidavit dated 05.12.2025 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 clearly indicate that respondent No.2 passed the award and the compensation is received by Smt.Mary John. Along with the affidavit, the documents are produced to that effect. However, the appellant is disputing the same by contending that the compensation was received by someone else by impersonating her. The affidavit filed by the respondents indicates that the criminal proceedings are pending with regard to the said issue. After

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:51161-DB W.A. No.1525/2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

considering the pleadings, earlier proceedings and the affidavit filed by the respondents, we are of the considered view that the appellant cannot assail the acquisition proceedings and insofar as the entitlement of the compensation is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant should establish the title and lay claim for compensation. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly,

¶64

rejected .

¶65

No order as to costs.

¶66

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶67

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶68

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt Mary John v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mary John v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Manoj v Naidu Vs Mr. Manjunath

Dr. Richard Picardo Vs Smt Shilpa Nag C T IAS

C H Venkataraju Vs Ramana Reddy

Mr. Saleem Pasha Vs the Station House Officer

Smt Shameem Bee Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri N J Raju