Hana S Khan Ghori Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY VIRTUE OF FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 22.07.2005 BEARING NO.NAE 443 MIB 98 AS PER ANNEXURE - A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IS LAPSED IN SO AS PETITIONER LAND ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the notification bearing No.NAE 443 MIB 98 dated 22.07.2005 issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1987' for short) in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.41 of Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysore District,

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32607 WP No. 2423 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

measuring 10 guntas of land has lapsed.

¶33

(i) The petitioner claims to be a joint purchaser of the aforesaid land having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 07.11.2003. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid land was acquired by respondent No.1 for the purpose of formation of Vidyanagara layout. The total extent of land notified for the said purpose was 184 acres 28 guntas, out of which 110 acres 18 guntas was excluded from acquisition, and only 83 acres 20 guntas was sought to be acquired. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued an award notice on 07.05.2007. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued a possession certificate in respect of the aforesaid land on 16.07.2010 and thereafter passed an award on 30.08.2010.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner claims that he purchased the aforesaid property in terms of a sale deed dated 07.11.2003, after the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997 was issued. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 pursuant to the final notification dated 22.07.2005 has lapsed.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:32607 WP No. 2423 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.18353-357/2014 connected with W.P.Nos.12231237/2014, held that the very same acquisition had lapsed and that too in a case where the petitioners were subsequent purchasers. He therefore submits that the petitioners is also entitled to be treated alike. He also referred to the judgment of a Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Nagu Bai and others Vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2001 KAR 1169 where it was held that a subsequent purchaser is not completely bereft of locus standi to challenge an acquisition on the ground that it has lapsed.

¶39

The writ petition is opposed by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 who contends that the petition is not maintainable, at the instance of the petitioner who is a subsequent purchaser after the issuance of the preliminary notification. It is contended that the possession certificate dated 16.07.2010 and the award notice dated 30.08.2010 were issued to the erstwhile landowners. It is claimed that possession of the land was taken after passing the award which

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:32607 WP No. 2423 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

was notified on 09.09.2010. It is further claimed that as the landowners did not claim the compensation, the amount was deposited before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mysuru on 15.09.2010. It is claimed that after an inspection conducted by the respondents on 24.02.2026, it was noticed that the petitioner has illegally enclosed the property. Therefore, it is prayed that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner in this petition.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶46

The petitioner contended that an extent of 184 acres 28 guntas was initially proposed for acquisition for the formation of Vidyanagara layout by respondent No.2. Thereafter, an extent of 110 acres 18 guntas was excluded from acquisition. Today, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has placed on record the scheme sanctioned by the State Government under Section 18(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 which discloses that the scheme was for the formation of a residential layout

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:32607 WP No. 2423 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

comprising 1036 sites in an area measuring 83 acres 20 guntas. Out of the aforesaid 83 acres 20 guntas, an extent of 65 acres 13 guntas belonged to the State Government. Admittedly, the possession of the said 65 acres 13 guntas of land was not handed over to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the same was taken note of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of W.P.No.18353-357/2014. Therefore, what remained was only a minuscule portion of land and hence respondent No.2 could not claim that it had substantially implemented the scheme. This Court therefore unhesitatingly holds that the scheme for formation of Vidyanagara layout by the respondent No.2 has lapsed under Section 27 of the Act, 1987.

¶51

Though, the question whether the petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, is entitled to challenge the acquisition on the ground that it has lapsed, is a formidable contention raised by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, yet having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also to the fact that the layout has not been formed in any manner whatsoever, it would be unjust to continue the encumbrance on the

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:32607 WP No. 2423 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

petitioner's property. Therefore, the contention urged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner cannot assail the acquisition on the ground that it has lapsed, is raised only to be rejected.

¶56

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the acquisition of the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.41 of Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysore District, measuring 10 guntas initiated by the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997 and followed by the final notification dated 22.07.2005 issued by the respondent No.1 has lapsed.

¶57

Any entry in the revenue records of the aforesaid survey number in the name of the respondent No.1 shall stand deleted and the name of the petitioner shall stand restored.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

HJ

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Hana S Khan Ghori v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hana S Khan Ghori 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. Kusuma Gangadharamurthy @ Kusuma Ramakrishna Vs Union of India

The Jayanagar Co. Operative Vs the Union of India

Sri. M. Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. Venkatesh, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Aswathanarayana, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Asharani @ Asha Vs the State of Karnataka