Karnataka High Court
WA/786/2013 of SRI A PAPANNA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010073672013 NC: 2026:KHC:39309-DB WA No. 786 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 786 OF 2013 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. A PAPANNA, S/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 786 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A PAPANNA,
S/O LATE ANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HINKAL VILLAGE,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE
SRI. ANAND K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
THE COMMISSISONER,
MYSORE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
J.L.B. ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 001.
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
THE SPECIAL LAND
AQUISITION OFICER,
MYSORE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
J.L.B. ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. SIDDHARATHA H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.21654/2001(LA-RES) DATED 18.12.2012 AND ALLOW
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS
AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PSS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
Heard Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel for Sri.Ananda.K, learned counsel appearing for appellant, Sri.S.H.Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.Siddhartha H.M, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.19679- 680/2001 c/w W.P.No.21654/2001.
3. The land in question in the present appeal is to an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.85/2 of Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk and District.
4. Initially a Preliminary Notification dated 01.04.1981 came to be issued under Section 16(1) of the
HC-KAR
City of Mysore Improvement Act, 19031, proposing to acquire an extent of 1023 acres of land at Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk, for formation of Vijayanagar Layout, which would include to the land in question i.e., Sy.No.85/2.
5. The State Government accorded approval under Section 17 of the Act of 1903 for formation of I Stage, Vijayanagar Layout by the order dated 22.03.1984 for an extent of 100 acres of land.
6. On 29.03.1984, the State Government has approved the scheme followed by Final Notification under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1903, which was published in the Official Gazette on 31.03.1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer2 passed an award dated 30.10.1985, wherein he had observed that 60 acres of land including the land in Sy.No.85/2 i.e., of the appellants stood deleted from the acquisition proceedings, as the said land was 1 "The Act of 1903" for short 2 "SLAO" for short
HC-KAR
proposed to be acquired by KIADB for formation of a Ring Road and Industrial Estate. Thus, no award was passed in respect of the said land as it stood deleted from the land acquisition proceedings. Interestingly, except for 30 guntas of land, balance land in Sy.No.85/2 has been bought over by the MUDA from the mother of the appellant, on payment of the compensation amount, which was determined in the Award itself.
7. It is not in dispute that further acquisition proceedings had been undertaken for acquiring this land. Once the land stood deleted from the land acquisition proceedings, unless fresh proceedings were undertaken, there was no question of the old acquisition proceedings continuing in respect of the land in question.
8. We find a very little substance in the submission of Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel that the SLAO would not have jurisdiction to delete the land.
HC-KAR
The SLAO did not delete on his own, but on direction of the State Government, he had deleted the land.
9. We therefore, allow this appeal and hold that the land in question measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.85/2 of Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk and District has not been acquired and the appellant remains the owner of the said land.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.1 ct-vn