Karnataka High Court
S Mahendra Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
W.A. No.596/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.596/2023 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN:
1. S. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O LATE SANJEEVA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O NO.765/B4, 5TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, L N COLONY
Digitally signed YESHWANTHAPURA
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM BENGALURU-560022.
Location: High
Court Of 2. B.T. BHARATHI
Karnataka D/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O 80C, GATE NO.7
RAILWAY OFFICERS COLONY
SHESHADRI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560009.
3. M. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O NO.1150, 6TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, K N EXTENSION
YESHWANTHAPURA
BENGALURU-560022.
4. M.N. YESHWANTHA
S/O M.N. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O NO.1150, 5TH CROSS ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
W.A. No.596/2023
HC-KAR
3RD MAIN ROAD
K N EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560022.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
REP. BY HOUSING COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD
BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 13/04/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.22755/2022 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
W.A. No.596/2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order
dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.22755/2022 (LA-KHB).
2. Sri.Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants submits that the land in question has
been acquired during the years 1990-92 and the original
landowner, by suppressing the fact that he has sold the
property in favour of the appellants, filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.50185/2014 wherein the learned Single Judge
declared that the acquisition proceedings are lapsed.
Being aggrieved, the Karnataka Housing Board preferred
an appeal wherein the parties entered into an illegal
compromise and the compensation was paid by
suppressing the fact that the appellants were the owners
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
HC-KAR
of the property in question on the date of passing of the
order by the Division Bench. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the said
fact and dismissed the writ petition by granting liberty to
institute a suit. It is further submitted that no award has
been passed in favour of the appellants and hence, the
acquisition ought to have been quashed on the said
ground itself. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3-Karnataka
Housing Board and the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge and seek to dismiss the
appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent No.1 and perused the
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
HC-KAR
material available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions made on both sides.
5. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking a
writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary
notification dated 23.06.1990 and the final notification
dated 30.05.1992 insofar as site Nos.76, 79 to 82, 84 to
86, claiming to be formed in 38 guntas of the land in
Sy.No.20/8 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk on the ground that the acquisition
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). It is to be noticed that
Sri.H.Venkatesha Murthy and others filed
W.P.No.50185/2014 seeking prayer to quash the
preliminary notification dated 23.06.1990 and the final
notification dated 30.05.1992 pertaining to the land
measuring 1 acre 0.8-15.68 guntas in Sy.No.20/8 of
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
HC-KAR
Valagerahalli Village which is the subject matter of the
present appeal. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition vide order dated 03.08.2015 holding that the
acquisition deemed to have been lapsed. The respondent
Nos.2 and 3 challenged the said order in W.A.Nos.2632-
2633/2015. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated
29.10.2015 recorded the settlement and disposed of the
appeal, wherein it was agreed that 49 guntas and 11
guntas shall be relinquished in favour of the appellants-
Karnataka Housing Board by the landowners on receipt of
the compensation and the authorities have agreed to pay
certain compensation. The contention of the appellants
herein that they have purchased the site from the
Karnataka Minorities Social Welfare Housing Society and
as on the date of entering into a settlement by the earlier
owner before the Division Bench, they were not having
any right over the subject matter of the property. The
learned Single Judge has considered the said issue in
paragraph 4(e) and recorded a finding with regard to fraud
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
HC-KAR
played and granted liberty to the appellants to institute a
suit. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge.
6. It is to be noticed that the writ appeal relating
to the same property came to be disposed of on
29.10.2015. The present appellants claiming to be owners
of the very same property which was the subject matter of
the earlier proceedings, have filed the writ petition in the
year 2022 and on the ground of delay and laches also, no
relief can be granted in this appeal.
7. The issue with regard to the ownership of the
subject matter of the appeal is required to be adjudicated
in a duly instituted suit by either of the parties. This Court
cannot come to the conclusion that the appellants were
the owners of the property which is the subject matter of
the acquisition. The learned Single Judge, also taking note
of the decision in the case of SHIV KUMAR AND
NC: 2025:KHC:48441-DB
HC-KAR
ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1 and
other decisions, held that the petitioner lacks locus standi
to question the acquisition. We do not find any error in
the said finding. The appellants have not made any good
ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge.
8. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the
same is accordingly rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
(2019) 10 SCC 229
