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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition filed through a GPA holder, whose claim emanates merely from an Agreement of Sale and a Power of Attorney which confer no ownership rights, can be maintained against the acquisition when the underlying petitioners have themselves consented to the award and accepted its benefits. +1 more

Court's answer

An Agreement of Sale and a Power of Attorney do not confer ownership rights on the GPA holder; the GPA holder has no independent title to the property.

Ratio / Principle

When the petitioners themselves have consented to the award and accepted benefits under it, the GPA holder cannot maintain a challenge to the acquisition proceedings; there is no material to show that the GPA holder has acquired any title or locus standi to question the acquisition.

Key takeaways

This Court finds no ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings or to quash either the Preliminary or the Final notification.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru) — WRIT PETITION NO. 11432 OF 2022 (LA-KHB), decided 30.10.2025 by Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha — DISMISSED. Five co-owners of Survey No.21/2, Yedavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, acting through their GPA holder Smt. A Rukmini R Naidu, sought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the Preliminary Notification No.KHB/LAQ/45/06-07 dated 14.06.2006 (Section 4(1)) and the Final Notification dated 15.03.2008 (Section 6(1)) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Held: (i) an Agreement of Sale dated 10.06.1996 and a Power of Attorney dated 10.06.1996, from which alone the GPA holder's claim emanated, confer no ownership rights; (ii) since the petitioners themselves had consented to the consent award dated 19.03.2011 and accepted its benefits (petitioner No.5 received compensation for 15 guntas plus developed sites at 60% : 40% under an MoU; petitioner Nos.1 to 4 swore affidavits accepting developed sites at 60% : 40% per the Government Notification dated 03.02.2011), the GPA holder cannot maintain a challenge to the acquisition and has no locus standi; (iii) consequently there is no ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings or quash either notification, and the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

NC: 2025:KHC:43599 WP No. 11432 of 2022

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 11432 OF 2022 (LA-KHB)

BETWEEN:

CHOWRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. SRI. AROGAYAPPA,

CHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O. SRI. AROGAYAPPA,

AVINASH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. SRI. CHOWRAPPA,

ASHISH

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. CHOWRAPPA,

JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O. LATE. RAYAPPA,

ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SMT. A RUKMINI R NAIDU, W/O. A RAJENDRA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1685, OLD NO. 5TH-A-CROSS, NEW 6TH CROSS,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43599 WP No. 11432 of 2022

HC-KAR

BSK 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE- 560 050.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. LAXMAN DODLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHU PRAKASH BABU D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE- 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAWAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

THE SPL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 4 (1) OF THE ACT, 1894, VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.KHB/LAQ/45/06-07 DTD. 14.06.2006 IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULED PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, WHICH IS AT ANNX-A., AND ETC.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43599 WP No. 11432 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the Preliminary Notification dated 14.06.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act') (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 15.03.2008 issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act (Annexure-B) in respect of the schedule property.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the materials on record.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition through a General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA holder'). It is stated that during the lifetime of one Arogyappa and Chowrappa, they along with the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43599 WP No. 11432 of 2022

HC-KAR

petitioners, have executed an Agreement of Sale dated 10.06.1996, and a Power of Attorney dated 10.06.1996 in favour of Smt. A.Rukmini.R.Naidu, in respect of the land bearing Survey No.163/3. The GPA holder contends that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.21/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Yedavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District (schedule property), which was acquired under the Preliminary and Final Notifications.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed a memo stating that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the children of Arogyappa and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the children of petitioner No.1-Chowrappa. As per the official records, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 hold title over 35 guntas of land in Survey No.21/2 and petitioner No.5 holds title over 1 acre 15 guntas of Survey No.21/2. It is further stated that petitioner No.5 has received a compensation for 15 guntas under a consent award dated 19.03.2011 and also allotted developed sites at the ratio of 60% :

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43599 WP No. 11432 of 2022

HC-KAR

40% upon execution of MoU, Copies are produced at Annexures-R1 and R2. Moreover, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 have also submitted affidavits expressing willingness to receive compensation in the form of developed sites at the ratio of 60% : 40%, in terms of the Government Notification dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure-R3).

From the record, it is evident that the petitioners have already accepted the consent award either by receiving compensation or developed sites. The present writ petition is filed by the GPA holder, who has no independent title to the property. The claim of GPA holder emanates merely from an Agreement of Sale and the Power of Attorney which do not confer ownership rights. When the petitioners themselves have consented to the award and accepted benefits under it, the GPA holder cannot maintain a challenge to the acquisition proceedings. There is no material to show that the GPA holder has acquired any title or locus standi to question the acquisition.

NC: 2025:KHC:43599 WP No. 11432 of 2022

6 -

HC-KAR

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court

finds no ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings or to quash either the Preliminary or Final notification. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sd/-

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

PHM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25