IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2022 (LA-KHB)

BETWEEN:

1 . THE COMMISSIONER

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD (KHB)

KAVERI BHAVAN

BENGALURU-560 009

2 . THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 .

1(a).

SRI. NARASIMHAIAH @ KUNTANNA

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH

SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS

SRI. N. SHIVANANJAPPA

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ KUNTANNA

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT No.255/1, 1

ST

D MAIN ROAD

7

TH

CROSS, VALAGERAHALLI

KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN

BENGALURU-560 060

1(b)

. SRI. N. NAGARAJU

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ KUNTANNA

2

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

R/AT No.1064, 1

ST

D MAIN ROAD

7

TH

'A' CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN

BENGALURU-560 060

1(c)

. SRI. N. GANGADHARAPPA

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ KUNTANNA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

1(d). SRI. N. GIRISH

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ KUNTANNA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

RESPONDENTS No.1(c) & 1(d) ARE

R/AT No. 265, 7

TH

CROSS

VALAGERAHALLI, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN

BENGALURU-560 060

2 . SRI. MUNIKRISHNA

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

R/AT. VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE

KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

BENGALURU-560 060.

3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001

REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N.S. SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R 1(d)

AND C/R2, REP. BY GPA HOLDER;

SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R3)

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

HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS A ND

SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.08.2022 PASSE D

BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.63796/2016 (L A-

KHB).

3

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN

J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ appeal is preferred by the respondents in Writ

Petition No.63796/2016 (LA-KHB) challenging the order

dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. We have heard Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned

Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri N.S.Sriraj Gowda,

learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1[a to d] &

caveator/respondent No.2 and Smt. Mamatha Shetty,

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing fo r

respondent No.3.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant - Board initiated acquisition proceedings

for the purpose of development of residential sites and to

construct housing facilities.

The acquisition proceedings

4

commenced with an issuance of a Preliminary Notific ation

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894

Act' for short) dated 23.06.1990, proposing acquisition of

land measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.22/2B. At the

relevant time, revenue records indicated that the n otified

extent fell entirely within Sy.No.22/2.

A Durasti Phodi carried out in the year 1989 resulted in

bifurcation of Sy.No.22/2. Consequent to this bifurcation,

the acquired extent of 1 acre 11 guntas of land came to fall

within the newly assigned Sy.No.22/2B. Upon this bei ng

brought to the notice of the authorities, the Final Notification

dated 30.05.1993 under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act was

issued specifically in respect of Sy.No.22/2B.

A Possession Certificate dated 11.11.1993 was

thereafter issued under Section 16(2) of the 1894 Act, and

the appellants were deemed to have taken possession of the

acquired portion of land in Sy.No.22/2B as of that d ate.

Owing to subsisting disputes regarding title over

Sy.No.22/2B, the compensation amount relating to tha t

survey number was deposited before the City Civil C ourt,

5

Bangalore under Section 30(1) of the 1894 Act and th e

same was communicated to the Assistant Registrar, C ity

Civil Court, Bengaluru, by letter dated 30.08.1996.

After a lapse of nearly 24 years from passing of th e

Final Notification, the respondents approached this Court by

filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.63796/2016, the same was

allowed by Order dated 08.08.2022. The learned Sing le

Judge proceeded to quash and declare the lapse of

acquisition proceedings insofar as the respondents’ property

was concerned. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the

appellants have approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellan ts

contended that the respondents suppressed the mater ial

facts and that the writ petition was filed with mal a fide

intention to defraud the appellants. It is further contended

that due to severe ill-health of the learned counse l on

record, the appellants were ineffectively represented in the

writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. A s a

result, they were unable to file objections to the writ petition

and they could not effectively defend their case.

6

5. It is further contended that the 1 Acre 11 guntas

of the acquired portion in Sy.No.22/2B was notified under

the Final Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the 1894

Act and was reflected in the Record of Rights, Tenancy, and

Crops of that date. However, this was not considered by the

learned Single Judge. Further, the finding of a lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation an d

Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short), is i n

contravention to the two fold test laid down by the Apex

Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal

reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, as Award amount of

Rs.2,91,690/- was deposited before the City Civil Court on

30.08.1996 and possession of land was taken over on

24.09.1993 and a declaration under Section 16(2) of the

1894 Act was also published on 11.11.1993. Therefor e,

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is not attracted to l and in

Sy.No.22/2B. It is also contended that possession could not

be taken due to pending litigation and subsisting j udicial

orders maintaining status quo. The period during which

7

acquisition proceedings were stalled by Court orders ought

to have been excluded by the learned Single Judge.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court i n the

case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal

and Ors, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents

No.1 and 2 contended that pursuant to Durasti Phodi

conducted in 1989, Sy.No.22/2 stood bifurcated and

renumbered as Sy.No.22/2B, measuring 1 acre 11 gunta s.

However, the Preliminary Notification dated 23.06.1 990

reflects only 24 guntas, and the appellants’ claim that they

acquired 1 acre 11 guntas under the Preliminary Notification

is stated to be false and contrary to the record. It is further

contended that several residential and commercial u nits

were constructed on the land long ago and that the

respondents No.1 and 2 are in actual physical possession.

8. It is further contended that although both the

Preliminary and the Final Notifications were issued for

8

Sy.No.22/2B, no award was passed and no possession w as

ever taken by the appellants. Reliance is placed on

Annexure-F, wherein the appellants themselves admitted the

existence of several residential units and further failed to

dispute the pleadings or documents produced by the

respondents before the learned Single Judge.

9. It is further contended that the appelleants' claim

of possession is false and there is no mahazar evid encing

taking of possession has been produced. It is also contended

that mere reliance on paper possession or possessio n

certificates under Section 16(2) of the 1894 Act is

insufficient without proof of actual physical possession. It is

also contended that the appellants were never in possession

of the lands in question and the learned Single Judge rightly

appreciated the evidence on record.

10. We have considered the contentions advanced.

We had already considered the contentions of the pa rties

and had passed an order dated 28.01.2025 as follows:-

"We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the appellants-Housing Board and learned Senior

9

Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 in

this appeal.

2. Considerable argument has been placed

on record by the learned counsel for the appellants

on the basis of the brief synopsis that has been filed

by the appellants. It is submitted that the writ

petition was filed in respect of three items of

property. It is submitted that in respect of third item

of property i.e., 23 guntas in Sy.No.22/4 of

Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South

Taluk, the said property was not subject to any

notification at all and that it was subject to direct

purchase by the Karnataka Housing Board by

document dated 06.08.1988 which was produced

along with I.A.No.2/2022 of the writ appeal. It is

contended that the property had been directly

purchased by the Housing Board for valuable

consideration and that the contentions with regard to

applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (for short,

'the 2013 Act') have no application in respect of the

said property.

3. Further, it is submitted that in respect of

29 guntas of property in Sy.No.22/3 of Valagerahalli

Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, the

preliminary notification and final notification were

issued on 23.06.1990 and 30.05.1992, respectively.

However, a Civil Suit was filed owing to an inter se

title dispute between the parties and an order of

status quo was passed in RFA No.1368/2009, which

10

is still in force. It is submitted that due to the orders

passed by the Civil Court, further action would not be

taken by the Housing Board in the matter.

4. It is contended that in respect of 1 acre

and 11 guntas in Sy.No.22/2B of Valagerahalli

Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,

preliminary notification was issued on 23.06.1990,

final notification was issued on 30.05.1992, award

was passed on 23.08.1993, possession was taken on

11.11.1993 and compensation was paid on

04.09.1995.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that in

respect of 29 guntas in Sy.No.22/3 and 23 guntas in

Sy.No.22/4, the contentions of the Housing Board are

not seriously disputed and that serious contentions

are not being raised in respect of those two

properties.

6. The said submission is recorded.

7. However, with regard to 1 acre and 11

guntas of property in Sy.No.22/2B, it is contended by

the learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2

that durasth phodi was conducted as early as on

20.06.1989 even according to the Housing Board and

that property in question was assigned a new sub-

division number as 22/2B. It is submitted that it is

thereafter that the notification was issued on

23.06.1990 but the preliminary notification showed 1

acre and 35 guntas of property in Sy.No.22/2 and not

in sub-division Sy.No.22/2B. It is further submitted

11

that the property had actually not been taken

possession of and that there were residential houses

in the property and the property had been put to use

for construction of houses even after the alleged

notification under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, issued on 11.11.1993.

8. It is submitted that in the light of the

specific provision and language of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act, it is clear that physical possession of

the property was not taken even after the award was

passed in 1993 and therefore the acquisition had

lapsed. It is further contended that it was for the

appellants to have raised the contentions

appropriately before the learned Single Judge and in

view of the fact that the writ petition was filed in

2016 and the matter was pending till 2022, without

any objections having been placed on record, the

appellants have lost their right to raise these factual

contentions before this Court in appeal. It is further

contended that there are several residential houses in

1 acre 11 guntas of the property in Sy.No.22/2B and

that no steps whatsoever have been taken by the

Housing Board pursuant to the notifications dated

23.06.1990 and 30.05.1992, respectively even after

allegedly passing the award in 1993 for taking

physical possession, forming of any layout or for

construction of residential houses in the property.

9. Having considered the contentions

advanced, we are of the opinion that the question

with regard to lapsing of the notification in respect of

1 acre 11 guntas of property in Sy.No.22/2B requires

12

a consideration. We make it clear that in respect of

other two extents of property, the appeal requires to

be allowed and the submissions made by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2

shall stand recorded and the directions of the learned

Single Judge with regard to those two properties shall

stand vacated.

10. However, with regard to 1 acre 11

guntas in Sy.No.22/2B, the appellants shall place

further instructions on record showing whether the

notices have been issued pursuant to preliminary

notification dated 23.06.1990. The mahazar for

having taken possession of the property pursuant to

the notification under Section 16 of the Land

Acquisition Act dated 11.11.1993 shall also be placed

on record.

11. List this matter on 10.02.2025 for

necessary material to be placed on record. Further

the instructions as to what has occurred in respect of

the properties which have been notified and acquired

pursuant to the notification dated 23.06.1990 shall

also be placed on record.

Interim order granted earlier shall remain in

force till the next date of hearing."

11. Therefore, though the prayer in the Writ Petition

is in respect to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas along with 1

gunta of kharab land in Sy.No.22/2B; land measuring 29

13

guntas along with 4 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No. 22/3

and also land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.22/4 of

Valagerahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,

the appeal survives for consideration only in respect of 1

acre 11 guntas of property in Sy.No.22/2B.

12. Thereafter, on 12.03.2025, a memo was placed

on record producing a copy of the Preliminary Notif ication

dated 23.06.1990 along with endorsements made by th e

khatedars of having received the notice as well as the copy

of the Notification. Further, the copy of the Final Notification

dated 30.05.1992 with endorsements of the khatedars in

respect of the property in question are also produced. It is

clearly seen from the said documents that notice has been

received by the legal representatives of the khated ars in

respect of 1 acre 11 guntas of property in Sy.No.22 /2. In

the Final Notification, the properties specifically shown as 1

acre 11 guntas with 1 gunta of kharab land and the survey

number is correctly recorded as 22/2B. Here also, th e

endorsements of the legal representatives of the khatedars

are shown. Further, a mahazar dated 24.09.1993, wh ich is

14

also placed on record by the appellants would show that the

possession of the property including 1 acre 11 gunt as of

land in Sy.No.22/2B has been duly taken.

13. It is clear that the Preliminary Notification issued

in respect of the property was dated 23.06.1990 and the

Final Notification was dated 30.05.1992. Though, it is

contended by the learned counsel for the respondent s that

an award was not passed in respect of 1 acres and 1 1

guntas of property in Sy.No.22/2B, it is asserted by the

appellants that award was passed on 11.03.1994 gran ting

compensation of Rs.2,91,690/-. It is stated that ow ing to

disputes regarding title over the property in question, the

compensation was deposited before the City Civil Court and

the same was communicated to the Assistant Registra r, City

Civil Court, Bengaluru, by letter dated 30.08.1996

14. It is further contended that after possession was

taken over, the fact was reflected in the record of rights.

The Apex Court in Indore Development Authority 's case

(supra), has clearly held that once possession is taken of the

acquired property under Sections 16 and 17 of the 1894 Act,

15

the vesting is complete. It is specifically held in paragraph

258 of the said decision, which reads as follows:-

"258. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with

possession and the statute has provided under Sections

16 and 17 of the 1894 Act that once possession is taken,

absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and

vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting

specified under Section 16, takes place after vario us

steps, such as, notification under Section 4, declaration

under Section 6, notice under Section 9, award unde r

Section 11 and then possession. The statutory provision

of vesting of property absolutely free from all

encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not on ly

the possession vests in the State but all other

encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of

the landholder ceases and the State becomes the

absolute owner and in possession of the property.

Thereafter there is no control of the landowner over the

property. He cannot have any animus to take the

property and to control it. Even if he has retained the

possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after

possession has been taken by the State, he is a

trespasser and such possession of trespasser enures for

his benefit and on behalf of the owner."

15. It is further held that Section 24(2) of the 2013

Act, where the award has been passed and the procee dings

are pending, but where physical possession of the land has

not been taken or compensation has not been paid, t he

16

proceedings will lapse. The Apex Court clearly held that

even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lap se.

Therefore, in a case where an award is passed and

compensation is deposited, even the contention that

physical possession is not taken cannot lead to a lapse of

the proceedings. In this regard, it is apposite to extract the

findings of the Apex Court in paragraph No.102 of Indore

Development Authority 's case (supra):-

"102. In Ranchhoddas Atmaram v. Union of India,

a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that if there

are two negative conditions, the expression “or” has to

be read as conjunctive and conditions of both the

clauses must be fulfilled. It was observed: (AIR p. 938,

paras 13-15)

“13. It is clear that if the words form an

affirmative sentence, then the condition of one

of the clauses only need be fulfilled. In such a

case, “or” really means “either” “or”. In Shorter

Oxford Dictionary, one of the meanings of the

word “or” is given as ‘A particle co-ordinating

two (or more) words, phrases or clauses

between which there is an alternative’. It is

also there stated, ‘The alternative expressed by

“or” is emphasised by prefixing the first

member or adding after the last, the associated

adv. EITHER’. So, even without “either”, “or”

alone creates an alternative. If, therefore, the

sentence before us is an affirmative one, then

we get two alternatives, any one of which may

be chosen without the other being considered

at all. In such a case it must be held that a

penalty exceeding Rs 1000 can be imposed.

17

14. If, however, the sentence is a negative

one, then the position becomes different. The

word “or” between the two clauses would then

spread the negative influence over the clause

following it. This rule of grammar is not in

dispute. In such a case, the conditions of both

the clauses must be fulfilled and the result

would be that the penalty that can be imposed

can never exceed Rs 1000.

15. The question then really comes to this:

Is the sentence before us a negative or an

affirmative one? It seems to us that the

sentence is an affirmative sentence. The

substance of the sentence is that a certain

person shall be liable to a penalty. That is a

positive concept. The sentence is therefore not

negative in its import.”

Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under

the old law, under Section 24(2) if both steps have not

been taken i.e. neither physical possession is taken, nor

compensation is paid, the land acquisition proceedings

lapse. Several decisions were cited at the Bar to say

that “or” has been treated as “and” and vice versa.

Much depends upon the context. In Yashpal v. State of

Chhattisgarh, the expression “established or

incorporated” was read as “established and

incorporated”. In RMDC, to give effect to the clear

intention of the legislature, the word “or” was read as

“and”."

This position is reiterated by the Apex Court in it s

decisions including Delhi Development Authority v. Anita

Singh and others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 113 among

others.

18

16. In the instant case, the appellants had produce d

the specific material and records, which clearly demonstrate

that an award has been passed in respect of the writ petition

schedule property and the compensation amount is

deposited before the City Civil Court. There is also clear

material produced to indicate that possession had b een

taken by drawing up a mahazar. The contention that the

land acquisition proceedings were legally unsustainable also

cannot be considered in the light of the specific materials

placed on record by the appellants. In the said

circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the cont ention

that the land owner remained in possession of the property

cannot make a difference to the situation. We further find

that the writ petition had been filed after an inordinately

long delay of 26 years from the date of the Prelimi nary

Notification, without any satisfactory reason having been

shown for the delay.

17. In the above factual situation, we are of the

opinion that the appeal is liable to succeed. Accordingly:-

(i) The writ appeal is allowed.

19

(ii) The order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.63796/2016, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The Writ Petition No.63796/2016 is

dismissed.

Pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand disposed

of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

JUDGE

cp*