Dismissed¶72

Sri. M Mahadeva Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026WA/82/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 82 of 2025 (LA-RES); Karnataka HC DB; S.24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 lapse; Land Acquisition Act 1894 S.4(1), S.6(1), S.9(1), S.10; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 paras 356-357; laches; no new cause of action after concluded acquisition; illegal possession after vesting; suppression of earlier writ petition W.P.No.22503/1989 (order 21.06.1996); Chamarajanagar Sy.No.640/2A and 640/2B; award Rs.91,800/-; cost Rs.10,000/- deleted; Government Polytechnic College on acquired land.

What did the court decide?

None; writ appeal dismissed. The cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge (deposit in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Karnataka) was deleted. Pending application(s), if any, disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶72

Sri. M Mahadeva Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that physical possession allegedly remained with the petitioner despite the award. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

After the award was passed and the sum deposited in the Civil Court, the acquired land vested with the Government free from encumbrances; the petitioner's continued possession was illegal, so the claim that possession was never taken gave rise to no lapse under Section 24(2).

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the acquiring authority had not evicted the petitioner, she would gain no right to occupy the land; she had no right, title or interest in the land after it vested with the Government.

¶66

Key takeaways

Following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, once acquisition proceedings are concluded there cannot be any new cause of action by means of subsequent development in law, and the doctrine of laches precludes an indolent party from reagitating a concluded acquisition.ratio¶46
The suppression of the earlier writ petition (W.P.No.22503/1989) and the order dated 21.06.1996 passed therein was not answered by the appellant's counsel, sustaining the Single Judge's dismissal on that ground along with the merits.ratio¶66
No ground found to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge; the appeal was dismissed and the cost imposed by the Single Judge was deleted considering that the appellant's counsel is young in the Bar.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Division Bench: D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.; oral judgment per D K Singh, J.) dismissed a writ appeal against the Single Judge's order dismissing a challenge, mounted nearly 20 years after an earlier rejection (W.P.No.22503/1989, rejected 21.06.1996), to the 1987 preliminary (12.02.1987, S.4(1)) and final (14.12.1987, S.6(1)) notifications acquiring 26 guntas in Sy.No.640/2A and 03 acres 08 guntas in Sy.No.640/2B, Chamarajanagar. Award of Rs.91,800/- (19.05.1990) was deposited in the Civil Court. Relying on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, paras 356-357, the Bench held that concluded acquisitions cannot be invalidated and no new cause of action arises from subsequent legal developments; post-vesting possession by the landowner was illegal and conferred no rights; the plea of lapse under S.24(2) of the 2013 Act failed, and the dismissal on merits and for suppression of the earlier litigation was upheld. The Rs.10,000/- cost was deleted as counsel was young at the Bar.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. M. MAHADEVA MURTHY, DEAD BY HIS LRS, SMT SUKANY, W/O LATE MMADASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NO.23/370, BRAMARAMBA LAYOUT, 4^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJNAGAR - 573 101.

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

REPTY BY HER GPA HOLDER, PARASHIVAMURTHY, S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SOSILE VILLAGE, SOSILE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPAPRTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 573 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT, IN WRIT PETITION No.44741/2015 DATED:21.11.2023 AND PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/s WHICH DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

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

¶30

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶31

impugning the judgment and order dated 21.11.2023 in W.P.No.44741/2015 by the appellant.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant had challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 12.02.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894¹ and Final Notification dated 14.12.1987 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894, notifying 26 guntas in Sy.No.640/2A and 03 acres 08 guntas in Sy.No.640/2B of Chamarajanagar Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara District.

¶36

Notice under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act of 1894 was issued to the owners on 03.05.1988 and award for a sum of Rs.91,800/- was passed on 19.05.1990 and the sum awarded was deposited in the competent Civil Court. The challenge made to the said acquisition proceedings is in earlier W.P.No.22503/1989, came to be rejected vide order dated 21.06.1996 passed in the said writ petition.

¶37

1 "the Act of 1894 for short"

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The petitioner, after almost 20 years from the

¶41

date of the order dated 21.06.1996, whereby the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings was rejected, had filed present writ petition, challenging the very same

¶42

Notification, on the ground of lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶43

According to the petitioner, though the award was passed, but possession has remained with the petitioner throughout and as the possession has not been taken, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

¶44

We have considered the submissions of the

¶45

learned counsel for parties. The Supreme Court in the case of INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS.

¶46

MANOHARLAL² , has held that once the proceedings are concluded, there cannot be any new cause of action by

¶47

2 (2020) 8 SCC 129

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

means of subsequent development in law. The Supreme Court at paragraph No.356 and 357 of the Judgment, has held as under:

¶52

"356. We are of the opinion that courts cannot invalidate acquisitions, which stood concluded. No claims in that regard can be entertained and agitated as they have not been revived. There has to be legal certainty where infrastructure has been created or has been developed partially, and investments have been made, especially when land has been acquired long back. It is the duty of the Court to preserve the legal certainty, as observed in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India [Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union ofIndia, (2012) 6 SCC 613 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 867]. The landowners had urged that since the 2013 Act creates new situations, which are beneficial to their interests, the question of delay or laches does not arise. This Court is of the opinion that the said contention is without merits. As held earlier, the doctrine of laches would always preclude an indolent party, who chooses not to approach the court, or having approached the court, allows an adverse decision to become final, to reagitate the issue of acquisition of his holding. Doing so, especially in cases, where the title has vested with the State, and thereafter with

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

subsequent interests, would be contrary to public policy. In A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar ReRolling Mills [A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar ReRolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647], this Court observed that equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade the law. There is no dearth of talent left in longing for the undue advantage of the wholesome provisions of Section 24(2) on the basis of wrong interpretation.

¶57

357. In British Railways Board v. Pickin [British Railways Board v. Pickin, 1974 AC 765 : (1974) 2 WLR 208 (HL)] , the following observations were made:

¶58

“… equity, when faced with an appeal to a regulatory public statute, which requires compliance with formalities, will not allow such a statute (assumedly passed to prevent fraud) to be used to promote fraud and will do so by imposing a trust or equity upon a legal right.”

¶59

The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition,

¶60

on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose filing of the earlier petition W.P.No.22503/1989 and the order passed thereon on 21.06.1996. The writ petition therefore,

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

has been dismissed on the merit as well as on suppression of material effect with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Karnataka.

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant

¶66

has no answer regarding suppression of material fact of filing the earlier W.P.No.22503/1989 and order dated 21.06.1996 passed in the said writ petition, dismissing the same. The petitioner's possession, if any, after the award was passed and the same got deposited in the Civil Court is nothing but an illegal possession, in as much as the land had got vested with the Government, free from any encumbrances. Merely on the ground that the Authority has not evicted the petitioner, he would not get any right to occupy the land, as he has no right, title and interest in the land after it got vested with the Government.

¶67

The learned Single Judge has noted that a Government Polytechnic College has been constructed in

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:30993-DB WA No. 82 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the middle of acquired land and the remaining extent was fenced with stone slabs and barbed wire.

¶72

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We therefore, dismiss this appeal. However considering the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant has made submission, who is young in the Bar, we delete the cost.

¶73

In view of dismissal of appeal, pending application/s

¶74

if any, does not survive for consideration and the same are

¶75

disposed of.

¶76

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶78

¶79