Sri Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI UMESH C S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, R/AT CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.

¶28

…APPELLANTS

¶29

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶35

UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶36

THE COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶37

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)

¶40

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

¶41

HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.13273/2018 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

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

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

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

¶49

This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13273/2018.

¶50

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶51

One Munihanumaiah was recorded as the owner of the

¶52

land bearing Survey No.58/2 of Challaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 1 acre 36 guntas. The petitioners are said to be the legal heirs of the said Munihanumaiah. A Preliminary Notification dated 21.05.2008 came to be issued for acquiring a large extent of land including the petitioners' land for formation of Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout and the Final Notification was issued on 18.02.2010 for acquiring 4043 acres 27 guntas of land.

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Notices were issued to the interested persons including the petitioners, who filed the claim statement on 19.09.2010 to fix the compensation. However, no award came to be passed. Therefore, the petitioners had filed W.P.No.34161/2013 seeking a direction to consider their claim statement and pass the award. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.09.2013 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the claim statement of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks.

¶56

According to the petitioners, despite the aforesaid direction, no award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, they have filed the present W.P.No.13273/2018 for quashing the Final Notification dated 18.02.2010 in view of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶57

The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decision in the case of OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., vs BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ([2011] 3 SCC 139) as well as the Constitution Bench decision in the case of INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS ([2020] 8 SCC 129). It has been held that challenge against acquisition on the ground of delay or lack of

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

development would not be tenable inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings have been continuously embroiled in litigation, wherein the interim orders were granted.

¶62

The learned Single Judge noted that Munihanumaiah had formed sites on the land in Survey No.58/2 and had alienated them by executing sale deeds/GPA. The said purchasers had submitted representation for excluding their sites from acquisition by collecting betterment charges and also obtained a direction for consideration of their representation in W.P.Nos.6292-6312/2012. As stated earlier, W.P. No.34161/2013 filed by the petitioners had already been disposed of on 30.09.2013 with a direction to consider their claim statement.

¶63

It may also be noted that the challenge to the preliminary and final notifications was upheld by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32186/2010 and connected writ petitions

¶64

(R. SHANKARAN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) .

¶65

Some of the purchasers from Munihanumaiah and GPA holder had filed W.P.Nos.6292-6312/2010 challenging the acquisition, which were connected with the said W.P.No.32186/2010 and

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

connected writ petitions. The writ petitions filed by the purchasers from Munihanumaiah and the GPA holder in respect of the sites in Survey No.58/2 came to be disposed of on 11.07.2014 taking note of the memo filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to the effect that it had passed the resolution to give up the revenue sites purchased prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification by collecting betterment charges and a direction was issued to the State to consider approval of the resolution.

¶69

Against the said judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 passed in R. SHANKARAN (supra), wherein the preliminary and final notifications were quashed, the BDA had filed W.A. No.1783/2014 and obtained interim order of stay. The said appeal came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 upholding the acquisition notifications in respect of Nada Prabhu Kempegowda Layout. However, the land owners

¶70

were permitted to seek for dropping of their land from acquisition, if their lands were nursery lands; situated within green belt; totally built-up; buildings were constructed by religious/charitable educational institutions or on the ground

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

that similar adjoining lands were left out from acquisition. In case of site owners, liberty has been reserved to register themselves for allotment of site with direction to treat their applications on priority. Time limit has also been fixed for consideration with further direction to maintain status quo until consideration.

¶74

In view of the aforesaid fact that the Division Bench had already upheld the land acquisition proceedings, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, however, permitting the petitioners to avail the benefit of the directions issued by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 22.04.2024 in W.A.No.1783/2014.

¶75

The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has submitted that on the representation submitted by the petitioners to drop their land from acquisition, the BDA has conducted the survey and spot inspection and submitted the report as per Annexure-F observing that there are fully built-up buildings on the land and for the surrounding areas of Survey Nos.12, 51, 53, 54, 58/1 and 59/1, the authority had issued No Objection Certificate on 11.03.2008. Further, the BDA had

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

issued two endorsements dated 29.04.2019 and 16.05.2022 in

¶80

which the surveyor has stated that there are partial buildings on Survey No.58/2 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and the area has been fully developed and therefore, it would not be possible to acquire/take possession of the said land.

¶81

The land acquisition proceedings have already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1783/2014 vide order dated 22.02.2024. However, the Division Bench has permitted the land owners to seek for dropping of their land from acquisition, if the land owners consider that their land would meet one or more of the parameters stated in the judgment. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment and order, has also permitted the petitioners to avail the benefit of the directions issued in W.A.No.1783/2014 for dropping of their land from acquisition.

¶82

We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, if the petitioners file a representation for dropping of their land on one or more parameters as stated in the judgment passed by the Division Bench in

¶83

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14462-DB WA No. 985 of 2024

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

W.A.No.1783/2014, within a period of 15 days, the BDA should consider the same in the light of the judgment in W.A.No.1783/2014 as also the endorsements dated 29.04.2019 and 16.05.2022. If the BDA passes the resolution for dropping the petitioners' land from the land acquisition proceedings, the resolution should be forwarded to the State Government for dropping the petitioners' land from the land acquisition proceedings.

¶86

With the aforesaid directions and clarification, we dispose of the writ appeal.

¶87

In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.

¶88

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶89

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶90

BKV

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Munihanumaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Munihanumaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijaya Venkatesh Vs Sri Thiammarayappa

The Commissioner Vs Hanumantharayappa

Mrs. Renu Kapoor Vs Mr. T R Ramachandra

Sri S C Ramachandra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka