Dismissed¶46

Smt.H.M. Sujatha v. Mysore Urban Development Authority

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WA/686/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Entitlement to land-acquisition compensation requires passing of title; claimants holding only an unregistered agreement to sell (dated 03.10.1991) with possession delivered cannot claim compensation from MUDA for land acquired under preliminary notification dated 23.12.1991. Earlier rounds: W.P.No.24663/1998 and W.P.No.24842-843/1998 dismissed; W.A.Nos.5264-66/1998 dismissed with Division Bench confirmation; contempt proceedings noted owners received entire compensation. Writ appeal against Single Judge's order dated 21.02.2025 in W.P.No.6749/2023 dismissed; costs reduced from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; costs reduced by this Court from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. ¶46

Smt.H.M. Sujatha Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46067-DB WA No. 686 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.H.M.SUJATHA D/O LATE H.J.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. KALASHREE D/O LATE H.J.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. ARAVIND S/O LATE H.J.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶12

APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT: R/AT "CAUVERY" (SY, NO. 118), BASAVANAHALLI, HINKAL POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 017.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. MAHESHCHANDRA.B.N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B.ROAD, MYSORE CITY, MYSURU-570 005, (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER).

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46067-DB WA No. 686 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTIION OFFICER, MUDA, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE CITY, MYSORE CITY-570 005.

¶20

SMT. DEVAKI SUBRAMANYA W/O B.M.SUBRAMANYA, AGED MAJOR,

¶21

B.M.SUBRAMANYA S/O MEENAIAH, AGED MAJOR,

¶22

BOTH RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 R/AT NO. 3/33/8, ANAND ROAD MARGA, AMBALAPADI POST, UDUPI, DAKSHINA KANNADA-576 103.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.6749/2023, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6749/2025, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.6749/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT/ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO PROVIDE THE COMPENSATION FOR THE PETITIONERS FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED FROM THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SUBSISTING MARKET VALUE ALONG WITH SUCH OTHER BENEFITS ACCORDED TO THE LAND LOSERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OR ALTERNATIVELY, DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF TITLE AND APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION ACT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SUBSISTING MARKET VALUE AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:46067-DB WA No. 686 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH &

¶30

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6749/2023 filed by the appellants.

¶34

The learned Single Judge has taken note of the several writ petitions and writ appeals filed by the petitioners in respect of the same issue which are dismissed and disposed of. The appellants are before this Court since 1998. At the first instance, two writ petitions were filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.24663/1998 and W.P.No.24842-843/1998 on the basis of some unregistered agreement to sell dated 03.10.1991 from the owners. The said land stood acquired and possession had been taken in accordance with law by the Mysore Urban Development Authority for which the Preliminary Notification dated 23.12.1991 and thereafter Final Notification was issued.

¶35

These writ petitions came to be dismissed. Against the dismissal of the writ petitions filed in 1998, the writ appeals

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46067-DB WA No. 686 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Nos.5264-66/1998 were filed which were also dismissed and the learned Division Bench confirmed the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge. In the contempt proceedings, it was noted that the owners have received the entire amount of compensation.

¶39

There are some other proceedings that are undertaken which have been taken note of in paras 4 to 6 of the impugned judgment.

¶40

The learned Single Judge has thus, in the impugned judgment has observed that the relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition was for a direction to the MUDA to pay them a compensation at the present market value which was already closed long bank dismissing the writ petition with cost of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶41

This Court asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to what is the right, title and interest of the appellants on the lands in question. It is stated that there was an unregistered agreement dated 03.10.1991 and based on the said agreement, the owner of the lands had delivered possession to the appellants. We fail to understand that when the title of the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:46067-DB WA No. 686 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

land has not been passed on to the appellants, how they could

¶46

claim compensation of the lands. We therefore find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and this writ appeal is dismissed. We however reduce the costs from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶47

Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶48

(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶49

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

¶50

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶51

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt.H.M. Sujatha v. Mysore Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.H.M. Sujatha v. Mysore Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Jamuna Singh Dua Vs Sri Mubarak N Zhad

S.P.Anil Kumar Vs Lakshmamma

Kalki Communication Technologies Private Limited Vs Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

The State of Karnataka Vs Umesha T N

The Board of Directors Vs Sri B R Nagaraj

T M Jayapal Vs the State of Karnataka