Dismissed¶57

Sri B Narayana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025WA/2676/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; MUDA road formation without acquisition; Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act 1997; alternate site allotment addressed; execution of sale deeds; representations to MUDA left open; State directed to ensure compliance within six months; damages and compensation determination; R.L. Jain (D) by LRS. v. D.D.A, AIR 2004 SC 1904 relied upon; WA No. 2676 of 2015 (LA-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB; Mysore; Jayant Banerji; K.V. Aravind.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the appellants on merits; subject to the observations made, the appeal is dismissed, the Single Judge's order is upheld, the appellants are left free to move representations before MUDA for execution of sale deeds, and Respondent No.1 (State Government) is directed to ensure compliance of the Single Judge's order within six months.

Sri B Narayana Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 05.08.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.22428-22431/2013 c/w. 46544/2012 (LA-RES), under challenge in the writ appeal, should be upheld or set aside. +2 more

¶38

Court's answer

The order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.22428-22431/2013 c/w. 46544/2012 (LA-RES) is upheld.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The appellants are left open to move appropriate representations before the Authority (MUDA) seeking execution of sale deeds etc.

¶37

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1 - the State Government - is directed to see and ensure that the order of the learned Single Judge is complied with expeditiously and certainly not later than a period of six months from the date of this judgment.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Jayant Banerji and K.V. Aravind, JJ.) dismisses Writ Appeal No. 2676 of 2015 (LA-RES) and upholds the learned Single Judge's order dated 05.08.2015 in W.P. Nos.22428-22431/2013 c/w. 46544/2012 (LA-RES). The writ petitioners' immovable properties had been utilised by MUDA for formation of a road connecting Hunsur Road to its layout without acquisition under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1997; the Single Judge, recording MUDA's undertaking to initiate acquisition, determine damages for the pre-notification possession period and compensation thereafter (referring title disputes to the civil court), with reference to R.L. Jain (D) by LRS. v. D.D.A, AIR 2004 SC 1904, disposed of the petitions. Counsel for the appellants having admitted that the relief of allotment of alternate sites stood addressed, the Division Bench left the appellants free to move representations before MUDA for execution of sale deeds and directed the State Government (Respondent No.1) to ensure compliance of the Single Judge's order expeditiously and not later than six months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 2676 OF 2015 (LA-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.B.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, R/O HOOTGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011.

¶11

SRI.MAHADEV,

¶12

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O VENKATAPPA, R/O 320, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSORE-570 011, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI.K.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, H.RANGAPPA, NO.314, 8TH CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSORE-570 011, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SMT.MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SILLEGOWDA, R/O HOOTGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011

¶18

APPELLANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER SRI.B.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, R/O HOOTGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI.K.R.LINGARAJU ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. M.S. BLDGS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶23

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JANSIRANI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶24

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA, AGA FOR R1, SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.22428-22431/2013 DATED 05/08/2015.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that, the appellants represented by him also have been allotted site/s by the Mysore Development Authority and it is for the Mysore Development Authority to take further steps in this regard by executing the sale deeds etc.

¶34

The learned counsel has fairly admitted that, given the relief sought for in the writ petitions, with regard to allotment of alternate sites, the same has been addressed. It is, however, urged that the appellants be permitted to move representations before the competent authority seeking execution of sale deeds, etc. We therefore leave it open for the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

appellants to move appropriate representations in this regard, before the Authority.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.22428-22431/2013 c/w. 46544/2012 (LA-RES), which is under challenge in the instant appeal is upheld, which order reads as under:

¶39

“ORDER

¶40

Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order.

¶41

2. There is no dispute that immovable properties said to belong to the petitioners have since been utilised by respondent Mysore Urban Development Authority, for short MUDA', for formation of a road to connect Hunsur Road to the layout formed by it, without acquiring the properties the provisions of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1997, for short the 'Act'.

¶42

3. Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel submits that MUDA would initiate acquisition proceedings under the 'Act', by issuing required notifications and also determine the damages

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

payable to the owners of the land for the period from the date of taking possession upto the date of preliminary notification and thereafter determine compensation and make payment after ascertaining the owners of the said land and if there is title dispute, would refer the same to the civil Court for necessary reliefs.

¶46

4. The observations of the Apex Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRS. Vs. D.D.A and others: AIR 2004 SC 1904 in the circumstance is apposite:

¶47

"18. In a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary Notification under S.4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of S.48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded.

¶51

5. Recording said submission, nothing further survives for consideration in these petitions and are accordingly, disposed of. Compliance as expeditiously as possible.”

¶52

It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that, compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, which order has been challenged in the instant appeal, has not been made. Therefore, we direct the Respondent No.1- The State Government to see and ensure that the order of the learned Single Judge is complied with expeditiously and certainly not later than a period of six months from the date this judgment.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB WA No. 2676 of 2015

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56