Mr K M Rasheed Khan Vs State of Karnataka

MR. K.M. RASHEED KHAN S/O LATE NANE KHAN AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS RESIDENT OF KRISHNARAJAPURAM VILLAGE AND HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 2^ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 2^ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560009

¶22

TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BANGALORE-560036

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶25

SRI. RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT BEARING NO.KA.GRA.MUM.BHU.SWA.VI.1/2007-08 DATED 18.04.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION NO.KUM.E.30/BHUSWABE.2009 DATED 26.03.2009 UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT STATE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶27

IN WP NO. 40891/2012

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

K.B. MUNI REDDY S/O LATE BALAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.148, BALAPPA REDDY ROAD K.R. PURAM BANGALORE-560 036 SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

1(a) SRI. HARISH K.M. AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE K.B.MUNI REDDY

¶33

1(b) SMT. USHA M. AGED 59 YEARS, D/O LATE K.B.MUNI REDDY

¶34

1(c) SMT. SHANTHA M. AGED 57 YEARS D/O LATE K.B.MUNI REDDY

¶35

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.54, 4^TH CROSS, BALAPPA REDDY ROAD, BALAPPA REDDY HOUSE, NEAR KOTE VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560036.

¶36

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2026.

¶37

...PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI. YASHWANTH C., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1(a) TO 1(c))

¶39

AND:

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶41

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 2^ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶42

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

2^ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560009

¶46

TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE-560036

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3;

¶49

NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶50

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT BEARING NO. PÀUÀÈªÀÄA.¨sÀÆ¸Áé«.1/07-08 (STATED AS KA.GRA.MUM.BHU.SWA.VI.1/2007-08 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 18.04.2007 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION NO. PÀAE.30/¨sÀÆ¸Áé¨É.2009 (STATED AS KUM.E.30/BHUSWABE.2009 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 26.03.2009 UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT STATE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC.

¶51

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶55

ORAL ORDER

¶56

In W.P. No.40889/2012, the petitioner has challenged

¶57

the preliminary notification bearing No.PÀUÀÈªÀÄA.¨sÀÆ¸Áé«.1/07-08

¶58

dated 18.04.2007 issued by the respondent No.2 and the final notification bearing No.PÀAE.30/¨sÀÆ¸Áé¨É.2009 dated 26.03.2009

¶59

issued by the respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to the land bearing Sy. No.23 of Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring 06 Acres 16 guntas. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.4 to restore the revenue entries in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner.

¶60

In W.P. No.40891/2012, the petitioner (since

¶61

deceased and represented by his legal representatives) had challenged the preliminary notification bearing No. PÀUÀÈªÀÄA.¨sÀÆ¸Áé«.1/07-08 dated 18.04.2007 issued by the

¶62

respondent No.1 and the final notification bearing No.

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

PÀAE.30/¨sÀÆ¸Áé¨É.2009 dated 26.03.2009 issued by the respondent

¶66

No.1 in so far as it relates to the land measuring 02 Acres carved out of Sy. No.20 situate at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and the land measuring 01 Acre in Sy. No.104 situate at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶67

3(i). Briefly stated the facts as pleaded in the writ petitions are that the petitioner in W.P. No.40889/2012 was the owner of the land measuring 06 Acres 16 guntas in Sy. No.23 of Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The now deceased petitioner in W.P. No.40891/2012 was the owner of the land measuring 02 acres carved out of Sy. No.20 situate at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and the land measuring 01 Acre in Sy. No.104 situate at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶68

(ii). The respondent No.2 issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the L.A. Act') proposing to acquire the aforesaid land along with other lands for the purposes of Housing project/Scheme. The

¶69

7 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

petitioners' submitted their objections questioning the validity and illegality of the notification on various grounds. The respondents purportedly did not conduct an enquiry as required under Section 5A of the L.A Act, but rejected the objections of the petitioners. Following this, a notification under Section 6 of the L.A Act was issued declaring the intention of the respondent No.1 to acquire the land for the aforesaid purpose.

¶73

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners' are before this Court.

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.40889/2012 submitted that in the absence of a housing Scheme containing material details as contemplated under Section 18(a) to 18(p) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (for short, the 'K.H.B Act'), the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of effectively putting forth his objections. He also contends that the Housing Scheme ought to have been sanctioned by the State Government before a notification was issued. He further contends that the land in question is a marshy land and therefore, it was not suitable for the purpose of Housing Scheme. He also contends that a perusal of Sections

¶75

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

17 to 24 of the K.H.B Act makes it more than apparent that a Housing Scheme is a sine qua non to issue a preliminary notification or final notification to acquire properties for the purpose of the Scheme. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of such a Scheme, the impugned notifications being arbitrary, are liable to be set at nought.

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c)

¶79

in W.P. No.40891/2012 reiterated the above contentions.

¶80

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶81

Nos.2 and 3 in both the petitions submitted that though a Housing Scheme is mandatory for the purpose of carrying out the acquisition under the L.A. Act, it is not mandatory that such a Scheme is sanctioned by the State Government before the notification is issued. He contends that these questions are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Karnataka Housing Board and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others [(2022) 18 SCC 194], where it was held as follows:

¶82

"79. For all the above reasons we answer the mooted question in the negative and to the effect that initiation of

¶83

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

proceedings for acquisition invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such proceedings null and void. We also hold that unless sanction is obtained from the State Government for execution of any scheme therein, in terms of Section 24(2) of KHB Act, the actual act to complete the process, viz., execution shall not be effected thereon."

¶86

He, therefore, contends that the contentions urged by the petitioners do not merit consideration. Besides this, he contends that the preliminary notification was issued in the year 2007 and the land in question is also used up for the purpose of a housing project by the respondent No.2 and therefore, this writ petition has spent in itself.

¶87

Learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶88

respondent No.1 also reiterated the above contentions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶89

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.40889/2012 and the learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in W.P. No.40891/2012 and the learned Additional Government

¶90

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:27243 WP No. 40889 of 2012 C/W WP No. 40891 of 2012

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶93

One of the formidable grounds urged by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that the respondent No.2 without having a housing Scheme in place, could not have initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of a housing Scheme. It is also contended that a housing Scheme is a sine qua non before issuing a notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act. This contention is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board (referred supra). Therefore, the most formidable contention urged by the petitioners falls flat to the ground. This apart, since it is stated that the land is already used for the purpose for which it is notified, nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions.

¶94

Accordingly, the Petitions are dismissed.

¶95

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶96

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81

Mr K M Rasheed Khan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K M Rasheed Khan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S N Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr D Rajan Vs Bangalore Development Authority

R.Srirama Vs the State of Karnataka

K B Muni Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shirur Mutt and Its Temple Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka