Karnataka High Court
Sri B Narayana vs State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
WA No. 2676 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2676 OF 2015 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
R/O HOOTGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011.
2. SRI.MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed S/O VENKATAPPA,
by K G R/O 320, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
RENUKAMBA VINAYAKANAGAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MYSORE-570 011,
KARNATAKA MYSORE DISTRICT.
3. SRI.K.NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
H.RANGAPPA,
NO.314, 8TH CROSS,
VINAYAKANAGAR,
MYSORE-570 011,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
WA No. 2676 of 2015
HC-KAR
4. SMT.MARIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O SILLEGOWDA,
R/O HOOTGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011
APPELLANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE
REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI.B.NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
R/O HOOTGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 011.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.K.R.LINGARAJU ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. M.S. BLDGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JANSIRANI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570 005.REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.N.ANITHA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
WA No. 2676 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.22428-22431/2013 DATED
05/08/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states
that, the appellants represented by him also have been allotted
site/s by the Mysore Development Authority and it is for the
Mysore Development Authority to take further steps in this
regard by executing the sale deeds etc.
2. The learned counsel has fairly admitted that, given
the relief sought for in the writ petitions, with regard to
allotment of alternate sites, the same has been addressed. It
is, however, urged that the appellants be permitted to move
representations before the competent authority seeking
execution of sale deeds, etc. We therefore leave it open for the
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
HC-KAR
appellants to move appropriate representations in this regard,
before the Authority.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated
05.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
Nos.22428-22431/2013 c/w. 46544/2012 (LA-RES), which is
under challenge in the instant appeal is upheld, which order
reads as under:
"ORDER
Since common questions of law and that of fact
arise for decision making, with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed
together, finally heard and disposed of by this order.
2. There is no dispute that immovable
properties said to belong to the petitioners have
since been utilised by respondent Mysore Urban
Development Authority, for short MUDA', for
formation of a road to connect Hunsur Road to the
layout formed by it, without acquiring the properties
the provisions of Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1997, for short the 'Act'.
3. Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel
submits that MUDA would initiate acquisition
proceedings under the 'Act', by issuing required
notifications and also determine the damages
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
HC-KAR
payable to the owners of the land for the period from
the date of taking possession upto the date of
preliminary notification and thereafter determine
compensation and make payment after ascertaining
the owners of the said land and if there is title
dispute, would refer the same to the civil Court for
necessary reliefs.
4. The observations of the Apex Court in R.L.
Jain (D) by LRS. Vs. D.D.A and others: AIR 2004 SC
1904 in the circumstance is apposite:
"18. In a case where the land owner is
dispossessed prior to the issuance of
preliminary Notification under S.4(1) of
the Act the Government merely takes
possession of the land but the title
thereof continues to vest with the land
owner. It is fully open for the land owner
to recover the possession of his land by
taking appropriate legal proceedings. He
is therefore only entitled to get rent or
damages for use and occupation for the
period the Government retains
possession of the property. Where
possession is taken prior to the issuance
of the preliminary Notification, in our
opinion, it will be just and equitable that
the Collector may also determine the
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
HC-KAR
rent or damages for use of the property
to which the land owner is entitled while
determining the compensation amount
payable to the land owner for the
acquisition of the property. The provision
of S.48 of the Act lend support to such a
course of action. For delayed payment of
such amount appropriate interest at
prevailing bank rate may be awarded.
5. Recording said submission, nothing further
survives for consideration in these petitions and are
accordingly, disposed of. Compliance as
expeditiously as possible."
4. It is not disputed by the counsel for the
respondents that, compliance of the order of the learned Single
Judge, which order has been challenged in the instant appeal,
has not been made. Therefore, we direct the
Respondent No.1- The State Government to see and ensure
that the order of the learned Single Judge is complied with
expeditiously and certainly not later than a period of six months
from the date this judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC:45937-DB
HC-KAR
5. In view of the aforesaid and subject to the
observations made herein, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KGR
