M Madappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

M Madappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a land loser who has once sought allotment of an incentive site can thereafter challenge the acquisition itself and/or contend that the scheme has lapsed. +2 more

Court's answer

The appellants' request for grant of incentive sites, made after withdrawing their earlier challenge to the acquisition, meant that they had acquiesced in the acquisition and had withdrawn their challenge against it; they could not challenge the acquisition yet again.

Ratio / Principle

There was material placed on record by the second respondent before the learned Single Judge to show that the scheme for which the acquisition had been made had been substantially implemented.

Key takeaways

The property in question was part of the layout and had been allotted as a Civic Amenity Site to the fourth respondent as early as in the year 2006.ratio¶107
The fact that the appellants had retained possession of the property which had already vested pursuant to the acquisition (and any internal communications) cannot be a ground to hold that the acquisition has lapsed.ratio¶113
With the learned Single Judge having accepted that possession had been taken and compensation deposited in respect of the property in question (including his finding, resting on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 and Bengaluru Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 69, that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions by an Urban Development Authority under the KUDA Act, 1987 or its predecessor), the Division Bench saw no reason to take a different view either on law or on facts.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.; judgment per Anu Sivaraman J., dated 06.03.2025) dismissed Writ Appeal No.838 of 2022 (LA-UDA) filed by M. Madappa and six others aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.35856/2016 (judgment dated 02.08.2022), wherein they sought quashing of the acquisition of 11 guntas in Sy.No.7/1B, Malalavadi Village (now Jayanagar), Mysuru, acquired for a MUDA layout under the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1963 under Section 16(1); Final Notification dated 25.03.1969). The Bench noted that an award was passed (03.10.1975 per Annexure 'E'; 08.10.1975 per the Statement of Objections) with compensation of Rs.2012/- approved on 09.10.1975, that notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued, that possession was taken on 24.09.1981 with a Section 16(2) gazette notification dated 21.04.1982, and held that (i) the appellants' pursuit of an incentive-site allotment after withdrawing their earlier challenge amounted to acquiescence barring a fresh challenge; (ii) material showed the scheme had been substantially implemented, the land being laid out and allotted as a Civic Amenity Site to respondent No.4-Trust as early as 2006; and (iii) retention of possession of land already vested pursuant to acquisition was no ground to hold the acquisition lapsed. The Bench further endorsed the learned Single Judge's finding, resting on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 and Bengaluru Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 69, that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions by an Urban Development Authority under the KUDA Act, 1987 or its predecessor statute. Writ appeal dismissed; pending I.As. disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2022 (LA-UDA)

BETWEEN:

1 . M. MADAPPA

S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D6, CH-25/D6 (SY.No.7/1B) NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023

2 . THAYAMMA

W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D1, CH-25/D1 (SY.No.7/1B)

NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023

3 . M. SHAMBEGOWDA

S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D2, CH-25/D2 (SY.No.7/1B)

NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023

4 . S. PRATHIBHA

D/O LATE M. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D3, CH-25/D3

2

(SY.No.7/1B) NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023

5 . M. PUTTAMADHU S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D4, CH-25/D4 (SY.No.7/1B) NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023

6 . M. BHANDANNA

S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D5, CH-25/D5 (SY.No.7/1B) NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023

7 . M. CHOWDAPPA

S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT No.2378/D7, CH-25/D7 (SY.No.7/1B)

NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD JAYANAGARA, MYSURU-570 023.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

2 . THE COMMISSIONER

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570 005

3

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD MYSURU-570 005

4 . SRI. ADI CHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKASHANA TRUST ADI CHUNCHANAGIRI KSHETRA NAGAMANGALA TALUK REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. SRI. SRI. NIRMALANANDA NATHA SWAMIJIGALU

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2; SRI. C.H. DEVARAJA, GA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.35856/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND (b) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.35856/2016 ON 02.08.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

4

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioners being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition No.35856/2016 by judgment dated 02.08.2022.

We have heard Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. S. Srinivas, learned advocate appearing for the appellants as well as Shri. C.H. Devaraja, learned Government Advocate for the first and third respondent so also Shri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. There is no appearance for respondent No.4.

It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that a Preliminary Notification was issued by a second respondent under Section 16(1) of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 on 19.12.1963 for formation of the layout connecting Jayanagar Saraswathipuram, Tonachikoppal in Mysuru. A Final

5

Notification was issued on 25.03.1969 including the writ petition schedule property.

It is contended that no steps have been taken thereafter and the petitioners had put up houses by obtaining license from the Grama Panchayat in the year 1981 and the Khata of the property stood transferred in the name of the appellants in the year 1996. The appellants had preferred Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed since neither the compensation was paid nor possession was taken. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that an earlier challenge had been raised against the acquisition, which had been withdrawn with liberty to pursue the application for grant of an incentive site. It was found that on making a claim for the incentive site, the petitioners had given up their contentions as against the acquisition and that they cannot challenge the acquisition yet again.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellants contends that the request made by the appellants

6

for grant of an incentive site also stands rejected by respondent No.2. It is contended that since no compensation has been paid and the appellants remained in possession of the schedule property, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, ('the 2013 Act' for short), would apply and the acquisition would lapse.

The learned senior counsel would place reliance on the amendment to the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 ('the KUDA Act' for short) and contends that since possession was not taken and compensation was not paid, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the acquisition was abandoned in respect of the appellants' property.

The learned senior counsel would also place reliance on a statement alleged to have been made by respondent No.2 in a written statement in

7

O.S.No.1393/2013 filed by the appellants that compensation

is not paid and possession is still with the appellants. It is further contended that the report prepared by the Zonal Officer of Mysuru Urban Development Authority is produced, where the constructions put up by the appellants are specifically referred to.

In support of his contentions, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the following decisions:-

Jayalakshmamma and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others , by Order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.13785 of 2024;

Bengaluru Development Authority and Another v. The State of Karnataka and Others, by Order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.5455 of 2024 ;

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and Another v. Sri. A.S. Vedamurthy and Others, by Order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.568 of 2022 (LA-KIADB) ;

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and Others v. Sri. Chethan Tayal and Others, by Order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.509 of 2021 (LA-KIADB) ; and

8

• K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs (Dead) by LRS v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 2016 1 AIR (Kar)(R) 482 .

The learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent, on the other hand, contends that the land in question is 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.7/1B, in Malalavadi Village, Mysuru Taluk. The property was subject to an acquisition, notified on 19.12.1963 and a Final Notification issued on 25.03.1969. It is submitted that the award was passed on 03.10.1975 as is evidenced by Annexure 'E' and notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were also issued on the owners of the land. Further, the property was part of the layout plan and was reserved as a Civic Amenity Site and allotted to fourth respondent - Trust. The acquisition was initially challenged by the appellants and by Annexure 'J', series of judgments; the challenge was repelled by this Court. Thereafter, a suit was filed before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysore as O.S.No.1393/2013, which also stood dismissed.

9

It is contended in the Statement of Objections filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition, reads as

follows:-

"6. Special LAO has passed an award on 08.10.1975 determining the compensation payable in respect of Sy. No.7/1B measuring 11 guntas and Sy No.7/1D 9 guntas as garden land and awarded a compensation of Rs.2012/-. Award has been approved on 09.10.1975.

7. On 23.09.1981 one Venkatamma asserted that the lands in Sy No. 7/1B & 7/1D are required for the house construction and they will not give possession of land. In this application Venkatamma claimed to be wife of Madagowda. On 04.11.1981 a notice has been issued to Madagowda (M.Shivanna) calling upon him to claim the compensation after producing relevant records, as the lands in Sy.No.7/1B and 7/1D have been taken possession on 24.09.1981. File contains a mahazar according to which lands in Sy No.7/1B1 & 7/1B2 measuring 11 guntas and 9 guntas have been taken possession and delivered to Engineering Department on 26.02.1982.

8. Possession of several lands have been taken and the Notification Under Section 16(2) has been published. In the said notification it is stated that possession of land in Sy. No.7/1B & 7/1D are taken on 24.09.1981. The gazette notification is dated 21.04.1982."

It is submitted that thereafter, in respect of the very same property, that is, 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.7/1B, Writ Petition No.50208/2012 was filed by M. Madappa, challenging the Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1963 and the Final Notification dated 25.03.1969. While the

10

matter was pending, the appellants apparently made an application on 21.09.2013 to the second respondent for allotment of an incentive site in the same layout or any other layout in lieu of his acquired land, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition. Accepting the memo, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn directing the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioners in accordance with law. It appears that the said request has been rejected by Annexure Q1, order dated 16.05.2016. It is thereafter that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the acquisition and raising a contention that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, would be applicable.

It is contended that W.Ps.No.610-615/2013 were filed by the appellants praying to quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of the very same property. The said writ petitions were disposed of by Ex.R9 judgment dated 23.09.2013 as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to seek allotment of an incentive site. Further, the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants challenging the allotment of

11

Civic Amenity Site made in favour of the fourth respondent - Trust were dismissed by Annexure 'J' to 'J7', judgments of this Court on 01.10.2012.

We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice that the property involved in the present Writ Petition is 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.7/1B of Malalavadi Village, which is presently known as Jayanagar in Mysuru. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions advanced and has raised the following points for

determination:-

"1. Whether on account of a challenge to an acquisition being dismissed, can the land loser raise a contention that the scheme in pursuance of which land acquisition had been made is lapsed and therefore land acquisition is also lapsed?

2. Whether a land loser once seeks for allotment of incentive site can challenge the acquisition itself and/or contend that the scheme has lapsed?

3. Whether Section 24(2) of the LARR Act would be applicable to acquisitions under KUDA Act?

4. In the present facts and circumstances can it be said that the scheme has lapsed requiring a declaration to that effect and further requiring the quashing of the acquisition notifications ?

5. What order?"

The learned Single Judge found that even where a

challenge to the acquisition has been dismissed, the land

12

loser can thereafter seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed in the event of necessary requirements being satisfied. However, it was found that once the land losers seek for allotment of an incentive site; they can thereafter neither challenge the acquisition nor contend that the scheme has lapsed. It was also found relying on the decisions in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129; and Bengaluru Development Authority v. State of Karnataka reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 69, that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would not be applicable to an acquisition made by any Urban Development Authority under the KUDA Act, 1987 or it's predecessor statute.

On the factual aspects, it was found that the total land was taken possession of and no evidence was on record to support the contention of the appellants that the scheme was not substantially implemented. It was therefore found that Section 27 of the KUDA Act, cannot be invoked to contend that the scheme had lapsed. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as being devoid of merits.

13

Having considered the contentions advanced, we find that there was material placed on record by the second respondent before the learned Single Judge to show that the scheme for which the acquisition had been made and had been substantially implemented. It was also the specific case of the second respondent that the property in question was part of a layout and was allotted as a Civic Amenity Site to the fourth respondent as early as in the year 2006.

We notice that it was the specific case of the second respondent before the learned Single Judge that an award was passed on 03.10.1975 and that the possession of the property had been taken on 24.09.1981. It was contended that due notices had been issued to the Khata holders of the property to accept the compensation after producing the relevant records. It is an admitted fact that Writ Petition No.50208/2012 was filed by Shri. M.Madappa, again challenging the acquisition, which was withdrawn with permission to pursue his application for incentive sites. Though the said request was rejected, it is apparent that the

14

request having been raised for the incentive sites would clearly mean that the appellants had acquiesced to the acquisition and had withdrawn their challenge against the same.

Though several other contentions have been raised in the present appeal, we are of the opinion that in the admitted facts as noted above, the other contentions raised do not require a consideration in the present appeal.

The learned Single Judge having considered the contentions raised and having come to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that the scheme had not been substantially implemented, we are of the opinion that there is nothing further placed on record to justify an interference on the findings of fact. The internal communications, if any, or the fact that the appellants had retained possession of the property which had already vested pursuant to an acquisition cannot be a ground to hold that the acquisition has lapsed.

15

The learned Single Judge having found it fit to accept the contention that possession had been taken and compensation deposited in respect of the property in question, we see no reason to take a different view either on law or on facts. The writ appeal fails and the same is

accordingly dismissed .

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of .

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

cp*