Landowners challenged acquisition notifications and a corrigendum correcting a survey number, claiming no compensation was assessed or deposited. The Division Bench held the acquisition had attained finality, compensation was duly assessed and deposited, and dismissed both writ appeals on res judicata and delay grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:1275-DB WA No. 788 of 2014 C/W WA No. 1282 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 788 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2015 (LA-RES)
IN WA No. 788/2014
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka
1(A) SRI.V.PRADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE V.MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.873, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, DR. MODI ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-86.
NC: 2026:KHC:1275-DB WA No. 788 of 2014 C/W WA No. 1282 of 2015
HC-KAR
1(B) SMT.POORNIMA VONTI W/O MAHESH KERUDI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NOW R/AT 3414, BELGROVE CIRCLE, SAN JOSE, CA-95148, USA. AND HAVING ADDRESS AT: NO.873, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, DR.MODI ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-86.
1(C) SRI.V.PRABHUDEV S/O LATE V.MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.873, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, DR. MODI ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-86.
HC-KAR
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. IAN LEWIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN J AND SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATES FOR C/ R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.2664/2008 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO. 1282/2015
BETWEEN:
WIFE OF LATE V MUDDANNA AND DAUGHTER OF LATE RUDRAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) NO.873, 9TH CROSS 2ND STAGE, DR. MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560010
HC-KAR
1(A) SRI.V.PRADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE V.MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.873, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, DR. MODI ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-86.
1(B) SMT.POORNIMA VONTI W/O MAHESH KERUDI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NOW R/AT 3414, BELGROVE CIRCLE, SAN JOSE, CA-95148, USA.
AND HAVING ADDRESS AT: NO.873, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, DR.MODI ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 086.
1(C) SRI. V.PRABHUDEV S/O LATE V.MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.873, 9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, DR. MODI ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 086.
WIFE OF G S PRAKASH AND DAUGHTER OF LATE RUDRAMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, 1ST CROSS, M.C.COLONY, TUMKUR-572 107.
HC-KAR
...APPELLANTS
AND:
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
S/O LATE T.SESHAGIRI RAO AGED 72 YEARS NO.303, GIRI NIVASA, I MAIN, BDA LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI EXTENSION, BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.
HC-KAR
3RD MAIN, HAL III STAGE BENGALURU-560 075.
DAVANAGERE-577 213.
HC-KAR
NO.27, MIG, SECOND PHASE KHB COLONY, GOPAL SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.
SUNKALPET, BENGALURU-560 002.
BANGALORE – 560 024.
HC-KAR
NO. 6, 5TH MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, PAPANNA BLOCK GANGANAGAR, RT NAGAR POST BANGALORE 560032
DR. C. P. GRACY 25. WIFE OF B. L. CHIDANANDA AGED 58 YEARS NO. 19, SANTOSH VIHAR PHASE I, JAKKUR POST SAHAKAR NAGAR POST BANGALORE 560092
NC: 2026:KHC:1275-DB WA No. 788 of 2014 C/W WA No. 1282 of 2015
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN J AND SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATES FOR R3; SRI. ARUN A GADAG, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R17; SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R18 – R26)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/01/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.52635 TO 52638/2014 AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
NC: 2026:KHC:1275-DB WA No. 788 of 2014 C/W WA No. 1282 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
These two writ appeals have been filed impugning two judgments passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2664 of 2008 and Writ Petition Nos.52635-52638 of 2014, respectively.
HC-KAR
dated 09.03.1991 was published in the official Gazette on 23.05.1991 in respect of the same items of land. The said land was required for the benefit of the University of Agricultural Sciences Employees House Building Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agricultural Society’). It was also said that an award came to be passed in respect of the land acquired. But, the award was passed in respect of the land bearing Survey No.30 instead of Survey No.31. Despite the award and notice of the award, the petitioners did not choose to receive the award amount and the petitioners said that they remained in possession of the land in Survey No.30 inasmuch as according to them, it was never the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings initiated, by issuing preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act on 30.03.1990. Thereafter, the State had issued a notification under Section 16 of the LA Act of 1894 dated 11.09.1996, in respect of the land in Survey No.30.
HC-KAR
LA Act of 1894, came to be challenged by the mother of the petitioners before this Court by filing WP.No.28409 and 28410 of 1991. These writ petitions came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, in appeals, also upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. A review petition was filed by the respondent – Agricultural Society, before the Division Bench. The Society had challenged the decision of the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 5095/1995. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 04.10.2001, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – Agricultural Society and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Division Bench and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
HC-KAR
No.494/2000 in Writ Appeal No.2421/1997, the petitioners went to the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.18153/2005. The said SLP, however, came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2005.
HC-KAR
1 acre 37 guntas of Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said writ petition came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.01.2014.
earlier round of proceedings and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and dismissal of the SLP.
HC-KAR
“It may be said that the respondents have sought to rectify a typographical error only and have not in effect sought to modify the notification itself. This also is not the understanding of the petitioners, going by the reference to the particular land all along during the proceedings, even before a Corrigendum was introduced by the State. The petitioners had filed their objections to the preliminary notification as well as the award proceedings with regard to the land bearing the corrected survey number. Therefore, the prejudice which would apparently befall a land holder, in his land being inaccurately described in the preliminary notification and further proceedings being taken without recourse to a corrected preliminary notification, and possession being sought to be wrested from him by surprise – is not evident from the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.
Hence, for the above reasons, there is no merit to be found in the petition and the same is dismissed.”
“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 30.03.1990 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under the original of Annexure A.
NC: 2026:KHC:1275-DB WA No. 788 of 2014 C/W WA No. 1282 of 2015
HC-KAR
b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 09.05.1991 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under the original of Annexure B.
c. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 11.09.1996 (wrongly dated as 11.09.1966) under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with respect to 1 Acre 14 guntas Survey No.30, Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the original of Annexure D.
d. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Award passed by the 2nd respondent in No.LAC.15/91-92 dated 08.09.1995 with respect to 1 Acre 14 Guntas Survey No.30, Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the original of Annexure C.
e. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Corrigendum Amended Notification dated 18.04.1994 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to 1 Acre 14 guntas Survey No.30, Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under the original of Annexure L.
f. Declare that the possession of the schedule lands are with the petitioners and restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the schedule lands.
HC-KAR
g. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the above case.”
HC-KAR
would be hit by the principle of res judicata and as the writ petition was dismissed in the second round of litigation, the very same issue could not have been considered and gone into.
HC-KAR
asking her to take the compensation, by presenting herself in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, on
15.02.1996 at 11.00 a.m.
guntas, was given in the award notice as under:
Compensation for well, building was assessed as under:
Neelagiri etc.,) Rs.1,91,567.00
HC-KAR
16 . The notice was issued for Rs.4,79,142.60 to the mother of the petitioners. However, the petitioners themselves have said that they did not choose to receive the compensation and remained in possession. The said amount of compensation also got deposited in the Treasury by the challan dated 05.05.1995 and the total amount deposited in respect of the land acquired in survey numbers 4/3, 34/1 and 2, 30 was Rs.8,33,838/-. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that no amount of compensation was assessed and no compensation was deposited is also wholly false and incorrect in view of the documents submitted by the State.
HC-KAR
petitioners gets falsified from the record of the State. We, therefore, dismiss both the appeals, however, without cost.
The petitioners may, if they so choose, receive the compensation as assessed and deposited by the State in respect of their lands by moving an appropriate application.
In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
BSS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a corrigendum correcting a typographical error in the survey number in land acquisition notifications was valid.
Whether the challenge to the acquisition was barred by res judicata given prior litigation and dismissal of the SLP.
Whether compensation was assessed and deposited for Survey No.30.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Gangambika
V. Pradeep Kumar
Smt. Poornima Vonti
V. Prabhudev
Smt. P. Susheela
Smt. Y.C. Chandrika
D K Singh
S Rachaiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
