Dismissed¶142

Smt. Kamalamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2026WA/1232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent Award; estoppel; legal representatives bound by predecessor's consent; reopening of acquisition proceedings barred; dropping of land from acquisition; BDA Nadaprahu Kempegowda Layout; Section 12(2) Land Acquisition Act notice; W.A.No.1783/2014 directions; endorsement dated 18.02.2026; unauthorized occupation notices; quietus; writ appeal dismissed; Karnataka High Court; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961.

What did the court decide?

Once the landowners have consented for passing of the award (as recorded in Paragraphs 19 to 21 of the impugned order), they have no further legal rights to seek reopening of the acquisition proceedings which culminated in a Consent Award; otherwise the statutory scheme under the Land Acquisition Act would have no meaning if kept resurrecting on one or the other request. ¶133

Smt. Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶142

Issue for consideration

Whether the Consent Award not having been given effect to - as indicated by notices describing the petitioners as unauthorized occupants and directing them to vacate possession - renders the Writ Court's order unsustainable (the petitioners' sheet-anchor attack). +1 more

¶121

Court's answer

The Consent Award, by way of the agreement and affidavit executed by Venkatarasappa (predecessor in title of the petitioners), is binding not only upon him but also on his legal representatives, i.e., the petitioners.

¶134

Ratio / Principle

¶133

Key takeaways

The Scheme by way of Consent Award was intended to bring a quietus to the entire acquisition proceedings between the parties, which was already done long back in 2012.ratio¶133
What was ordered in the earlier Writ Petition seeking Mandamus (W.P.No.21965/2025, as printed) was only a direction to the BDA to consider the representation in accordance with law.ratio¶133
Consequently, the petitioners are estopped from seeking any relief which is not in terms of the consent award as long as the consent award remains intact; no grounds exist to interfere with the Writ Court's order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LA-BDA), High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench, per T.M.Nadaf, J.; D K Singh, J.) - Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the legal representatives of Late Venkatarasappa against the Single Judge's order dated 06.04.2026 in W.P.No.8120/2026 dismissing their challenge to the BDA endorsement dated 18.02.2026 (No.BDA/ALAO/LAC/434/2025-26) rejecting deletion of Sy.No.22/2 (2 acres), Manganahalli Village, from the Nadaprahu Kempegowda Layout acquisition (Preliminary Notification 21.05.2008; Final Notification 18.02.2010). Held: once landowners consent to passing of the award, they have no further legal right to seek reopening of acquisition proceedings culminating in a Consent Award, else the statutory scheme under the Land Acquisition Act would have no meaning; the Consent Award scheme was intended to bring a quietus to the acquisition proceedings, achieved back in 2012; the Consent Award (Agreement dated 05.07.2012 - 9,583 Sq.ft. developed sites for one acre and Rs.1,00,00,000/- cash compensation for another acre; affidavit dated 23.07.2012; notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act acknowledged by the predecessor) binds his legal representatives, who are estopped from seeking any relief outside the Consent Award while it remains intact; the earlier Mandamus order (W.P.No.21965/2025, as printed) required only consideration of the representation in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2026 (LA-BDA)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. KAMALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA, R/AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. JINNU BAI NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O M. NAGARAJU, D/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA R/AT NO.1,MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶14

SMT. NAGAMANI M. V. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O M. RAJANNA, R/AT NO. 77, 4^TH BLOCK, SIR M.V. LAYOUT, ULLALU BASTI, ULLALU UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶15

SRI. MANJUNATH M.V. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA,

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶19

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶20

R/AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶21

SRI. KUMAR .V., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA, R/AT NO. 70,MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. CHETAN B., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶26

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶27

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDALAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF WP NO.8120/2026 FROM THE REGISTRY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED:06.04.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.8120/2026 AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶38

This intra-Court appeal is by the unsuccessful

¶39

petitioners in W.P.No.8120/2026, assailing the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the Writ Court.

¶40

The Writ Court under the impugned order,

¶41

dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶42

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶46

Facts germane to file the present appeal are as

¶47

under:

¶48

4.1 The Petitioners filed the Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:

¶49

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or order or direction in similar nature quashing the Annexure-A i.e., impugned Endorsement dated 18.02.2026 vide No.BDA/ALAO/LAC/434/2025-26 issued by the 3^rd Respondent in respect of land bearing Sy.No.22/2 measuring 2 acres of Mananahalli Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk;

¶50

b) Direct the Respondents to consider the representation dated 20.05.2025 Annexure-P and dated 09.10.2025 at Annexure-Q1 to delete the land bearing Sy.No.22/2 measuring 2 acres of Manganahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the acquisition proceedings;

¶51

c) Issue any order or orders as deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶52

4.2 Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 proposing

¶53

to acquire land for the purpose of formation of Nadaprahu Kempegowda Layout issued by the

¶54

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶57

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶58

Bengaluru Development Authority¹ , followed by Final Notification dated 18.02.2010. Late Venkatarasappa aggrieved by the Notification preferred Writ Petition in No.6705/2014 before the Writ Court. The Writ Court by means of its order dated 20.03.2015, disposed of the Writ Petition in terms of order passed in W.P.No.1379/2015 dated 27.01.2015 and setaside the Notifications. The order passed in W.P.No.6705/2014 was the subject matter in the Writ Appeal, along with several orders passed by the Writ Court, in respect of the same subject matter, including in W.A.No.1783/2014 and other connected matters.

¶59

4.3 The Division Bench upholding the acquisition notifications, issued certain directions to the BDA insofar as considering permissible relief to the site holders and land holders. In W.A.No.1783/2014, the

¶60

1 'the BDA', for short

¶61

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶64

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶65

Division Bench had directed that the case of land owners be considered as regards the request for dropping their lands from acquisition on certain stipulated grounds as mentioned in the operative portion of the order in the aforementioned Writ Appeal.

¶66

4.4 Pursuant thereto, the petitioners herein (legal representatives of Late Venkatarasappa), had made a request for considering their case in terms of directions in W.A.No.1783/2014 to the BDA, which has ended in issuance of an endorsement at Annexure-A, rejecting the request of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition in No.8120/2026.

¶67

4.5 Before the Writ Court, it was contended by the petitioners that, petitioner No.1 being the wife and petitioners 2 to 5 being the children of Late Venkatarasappa, have interest in respect of property

¶68

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶71

bearing Sy.No.22/2 measuring 02 Acres out of 03

¶72

Acres 22 Guntas of Manganahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It was further contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, in the Writ Petition filed by their predecessor in title - Late Venkatarasappa in No.6705/2014, certain directions were issued inter alia on fulfillment of certain criteria, the BDA was directed to examine the case of the land owners and record a finding as to whether the lands could be left out.

¶73

4.6 The petitioners made a representation on 20.05.2024, seeking for dropping of the acquisition proceedings in respect of property in Sy.No.22/2 measuring 02 Acres in Manganahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It was

¶74

urged in the representation that, the lands surrounding the petitioners' land had already been left out and the petitioners were running a brick

¶75

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶78

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶79

factory since 2004 on the land, and requested for

¶80

dropping of the acquisition proceedings.

¶81

4.7 As the representation was not considered, the petitioners were before the Writ Court in W.P.No.21695/2025, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus to consider their representation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the BDA to consider the representation and pass necessary order, while taking note of the order passed in W.A.No.1783/2014, permitting the petitioners to file fresh representation.

¶82

4.8 Thereafter, the petitioners made another representation to the BDA with similar request. Though the BDA considering the case of some of the land owners in terms of order passed in W.A.No.1783/2014, passed a Resolution on 31.07.2024, however, the said Resolution does not contain discussion regarding consideration of

¶83

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶86

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶87

petitioners' case. The petitioners thereafter, were issued notices at Annexure-S1 to S3, describing the occupation of the petitioners' to be 'unauthorized' and directed them to vacate the possession within 07 days without considering their case in terms of directions issued in W.A.No.1783/2014. Accordingly, they sought to allow the Writ Petition, quash the Endorsement and direct the BDA to pass orders dropping their land from the acquisition.

¶88

4.9 The BDA appeared before the Writ Court through its counsel and contended that Venkatarasappa - the predecessor in title, had in fact expressed consent for passing the award in 50:50 ratio, i.e., developed land in lieu of 01 Acre of land and cash compensation in respect of another Acre of the land acquired. It was further contended that though the petitioners have

¶89

relied on the directions in W.A.No.1783/2014, however when W.P.No.21695/2025 was disposed of, the only direction was for consideration of the

¶90

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶93

representation of the petitioners in accordance with law. It was specifically contended by the BDA that once the consent award is passed, unless and until the same is set-aside by due process of law, the question of seeking dropping of proceedings does not arise.

¶94

4.10 The Writ Court after hearing the rival submissions,

¶95

was of the opinion that the predecessor in title i.e., Venkatarasappa signed the Agreement dated 05.07.2012, in terms of which the land owner was entitled to get an extent of 9,583 Sq.ft. of developed sites as regards 01 Acre of land and cash compensation for the remaining 01 Acre of land. In the said agreement, there is a specific stipulation in Clause 7, which states that the land owner 'will not file any case in any Court against the first party' .

¶96

4.11 The Writ Court further noticed that Venkatarasappa executed an agreement supra, subscribing his

¶97

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶100

signature. The copy of the consent award dated 05.07.2012, which was also placed on record indicates at Paragraph No.17 that, compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- is fixed as regards to 01 Acre and 9,583 Sq.ft. of developed sites have been earmarked as compensation by way of developed property instead of cash compensation. The said award has been approved by the Deputy Commissioner, BDA. The copy of the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also placed before the Writ Court, which bears the signature of Venkatarasappa. In furtherance thereof, Venkatarasappa had filed an affidavit dated 23.07.2012 reiterating his readiness to claim compensation.

¶101

4.12 The Writ Court after considering the entire material

¶102

and noticing the fact that at Paragraph No.4 of the order in W.P.No.21695/2025, a request was made seeking quashing of the consent given by

¶103

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶106

Venkatarasappa by way of filing an application seeking amendment, however the said application was not adjudicated and the relief sought was not granted. The Writ Court from Paragraphs 28 to 34 of the impugned order concluded that, once the land owner had consented for passing of consent award as noticed with respect to the documents stated in Paragraphs 19 to 21 of the impugned order, they have no further legal right to seek reopening of the acquisition proceedings, which has culminated in a Consent Award. The reason being, the statutory Scheme introduced under the Land Acquisition Act would not provide for reopening of a Consent Award. In that view of the matter, the question of seeking any further reliefs, such as, dropping of acquisition of their land would not arise as long the Consent Award is intact as a part of the record.

¶107

4.13 The Writ Court reiterating that the Consent Award still remains, binding on the petitioners who claims

¶108

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶111

through Venkatarasappa who is a privy to the Agreement, Consent Award as well as Affidavit, is binding on him as well as his legal representatives i.e., the petitioners and the petitioners who claim under him are now estopped from seeking any relief in terms of the Consent Award.

¶112

4.14 An attempt which was made to contend that the Consent Award passed is not acted upon is negated by the Writ Court and the Writ Court was of the opinion that there lies no cause of action to seek other reliefs as long as the said Consent Award is not

¶113

set-aside by the competent Court. The Writ Court therefore, concludes that the endorsement issued by the BDA clearly narrates the entirety of events and culminates in rejection of the request which is indeed consistent with the legal position that would not

¶114

enable the petitioners to seek for any relief independent of the Consent Award. The Writ Court also observed that the present Writ Petition itself

¶115

14 -

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶118

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶119

amounts to an abuse of the process of Court insofar as multiple litigations are instituted, while all along the Consent Award of the year 2012 continues to bind the parties. Accordingly, rejected the Writ Petition. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal.

¶120

Heard, Sri.Vikram A.Huilgol, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Chetan.S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶121

The sheet anchor of attack by the petitioners is that, the Consent Award was not given effect to and the notices now issued stating that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants and directing them to vacate and handover the possession, clearly show that the possession is not taken and in that view of the matter, the Mahazar

¶122

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶125

for taking possession was sham and created document.

¶126

Hence, the order passed by the Writ Court does not survive for consideration.

¶127

Whereas, Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned

¶128

counsel appearing for the BDA argued in support of the order passed by the Writ Court, contending that the writ Court having considered the Consent Award accepted by Late Venkatarasappa - the predecessor in title of the petitioners, as well as the affidavit executed by him expressing his readiness to receive compensation, which has culminated in passing of the Consent Award and issuance of a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, duly acknowledged by the signature of Venkatarasappa, the petitioners' claim seeking to drop their lands from acquisition proceedings cannot be countenanced and sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶129

Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the Writ Court is right in holding that,

¶130

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶133

once the landowners have consented for passing of the award as recorded in Paragraphs 19 to 21 of the impugned order, they have no further legal rights to seek the reopening of the acquisition proceedings, which had culminated in a Consent Award, otherwise the statutory scheme under the Land Acquisition Act has no meaning, if it is kept resurrecting on one or the other request. The Scheme by way of Consent Award was intended to bring a quietus to the entire acquisition proceedings between the parties, which has already been done long back in 2012. What is ordered in the earlier Writ Petition seeking Mandamus in W.P.No.21965/2025, as rightly considered

¶134

by the Writ Court was, only a direction to the BDA to consider the representation in accordance with law. In view of the documents placed on record, the Writ Court has rightly observed that, the Consent Award by way of executing an agreement and an affidavit by Venkatarasappa - the predecessor in title of the petitioners, is binding not only upon him but also on the

¶135

17 -

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

NC: 2026:KHC:36842-DB WA No. 1232 of 2026

¶138

CNR: KAHC010287192026

¶139

legal representatives, i.e., the petitioners herein.

¶140

Consequently, the petitioners are estopped from seeking

¶141

any relief which is not in terms of the consent award as long as the consent award remains intact. In that view of the matter, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶142

In view of dismissal of Writ Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶143

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶144

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶145

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 ct-vn

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final order dated 06.04.2026 of the learned Single Judge (Writ Court) in W.P.No.8120/2026 dismissing the writ petition challenging the BDA endorsement dated 18.02.2026 rejecting deletion of the petitioners' land from acquisition.¶33
High Court of Karnataka, learned Single Judge (Writ Court) · 06.04.2026
Prior proceeding
BDA issued Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 proposing acquisition of land for formation of Nadaprahu Kempegowda Layout.¶52
Prior proceeding
Final Notification dated 18.02.2010 followed; Late Venkatarasappa, aggrieved by the Notification, preferred W.P.No.6705/2014 before the Writ Court.¶58
Prior proceeding
Venkatarasappa signed an Agreement dated 05.07.2012 entitling the land owner to 9,583 Sq.ft. of developed sites for 01 Acre and cash compensation for the remaining 01 Acre; Clause 7 stipulated that the land owner 'will not file any case in any Court against the first party'.¶95
Prior proceeding
Consent Award dated 05.07.2012 fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for 01 Acre and earmarked 9,583 Sq.ft. of developed sites in lieu of cash compensation; approved by the Deputy Commissioner, BDA; award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act bore Venkatarasappa's signature; he filed an affidavit dated 23.07.2012 reiterating readiness to claim compensation.¶100
Prior proceeding
By order dated 20.03.2015 the Writ Court disposed of W.P.No.6705/2014 in terms of the order in W.P.No.1379/2015 dated 27.01.2015 and set aside the Notifications.¶58
Prior proceeding
In W.A.No.1783/2014 and connected matters, the Division Bench upheld the acquisition notifications and directed that the case of land owners be considered for dropping their lands from acquisition on certain stipulated grounds.¶65
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the directions in W.A.No.1783/2014, the petitioners (legal representatives of Late Venkatarasappa) made a request to the BDA, which ended in issuance of an endorsement at Annexure-A rejecting their request.¶66
Prior proceeding
The petitioners made a representation on 20.05.2024 seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No.22/2 measuring 02 Acres, citing that surrounding lands had been left out and that they ran a brick factory on the land since 2004.¶73
Prior proceeding
As the representation was not considered, the petitioners filed W.P.No.21695/2025 seeking Mandamus; it was disposed of directing the BDA to consider the representation in accordance with law, taking note of W.A.No.1783/2014, and permitting a fresh representation.¶81
Prior proceeding
The BDA passed a Resolution on 31.07.2024 considering some land owners in terms of W.A.No.1783/2014, but it contained no discussion regarding consideration of the petitioners' case.¶82
Prior proceeding
The petitioners were issued notices at Annexure-S1 to S3 describing their occupation as 'unauthorized' and directing them to vacate possession within 07 days, without considering their case per the W.A.No.1783/2014 directions.¶87
Prior proceeding
The BDA issued the impugned Endorsement dated 18.02.2026 (No.BDA/ALAO/LAC/434/2025-26) rejecting the request regarding Sy.No.22/2 measuring 2 acres; challenged in W.P.No.8120/2026.¶49

Smt. Kamalamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamalamma v. the 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

Sri. Dr. Navin Kumar Rastogi Vs Smt. Neeta Rastogi

Sri Y S Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkappa Malekudiya Vs Smt Eramma

Sri Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registrar Vs State of Karnataka

Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs M/S Maya Traders