VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Karnataka High Court 2026 › High Court of Karnataka

Mr. Ramachandra v. State of Karnataka

DISPOSED
Court
High Court of Karnataka
Decided
17 February 2026
Bench
S Sunil Dutt Yadavauthor
Case no.
WP 1133/2016

Follow Karnataka High CourtFollow S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Judgment

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9651 WP(No.(1133(of(2016 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(17 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(1133(OF(2016((LA-RES) BETWEEN:( MR.,RAMACHANDRA, S/O.,BUSSAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS,, STR/AT,NO.12,,1 ,CROSS,, YELLAMMA,TEMPLE,ROAD,, AMRUTALLI,, BENGALURU-560,092., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,JANARDHANA,G.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, DEPARTMENT,OF,HOUSING,AND,, Digitally signedtiby URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,, VIJAYA0P VIKASA,SOUDHA,,Location: HIGH0COURT BENGALURU-560,001., OF KARNATAKA REP.,BY,ITS,SECRETARY.,

2., THE,SPECIAL,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,, BENGALURU,URBAN,DISTRICT,, BENGALURU.,

3., TALACAUVERY,HOUSE,BUILDING,CO-OPERATIVE, SOCIETY,LTD.,, 12/3A,,NANDAGOKULA,, ST1 ,FLOOR,,YAMUNABAI,ROAD,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9651 WP(No.(1133(of(2016 MADAVANAGAR,, BENGALURU-560,001,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY.,

4., THE,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER,, BENGALURU,URBAN,DISTRICT,, V.V.,TOWERS,,PODIUM,BLOCK,,III,FLOOR,, DR.,B.R.,AMBEDKAR,VEEDI,, BENGALURU-560,001.,

5., SRI.,P.,ASHOK,RAJU, S/O,LATE,P.S.N.RAJU,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, NO.B-510,,PATEL,CALLISTO,APARTMENTS,, TALACAUVERY,LAYOUT,,AMRUTHAHALLI,, BENGALURU-560,092.,

6., SRI.,D.T.,SHIVAPRASAD, S/O,SRI.,D.S.THIPPESWAMY,, TH RD7 ,CROSS,,3 ,MAIN,,BINNY,LAYOUT,, ATTIGUPPE,,VIJAYANAGAR,, BENGALURU-560,040., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HARISHA,A.S.,,AGA,FOR,R1,,2,AND,4;, ,,,,,,SRI.,SANGAMESH,R.B.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5,AND,6;, ,,,,,,SRI.,B.M.,HALASWAMY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3;, ,,,,,,SRI.,SHIVARUDRAPPA,E.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,PROPOSED, ,,,,,,RESPONDENTS,ON,I.A.2/2025), , THIS, W.P., IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DECLARE, THE, NOTIFICATION, DATED, 16.12.1987, ISSUED, BY, THE, RESPONDENTS, UNDER, SECTION, 4(1), OF, THE, LAND, ACQUISITION, ACT,, 1894, VIDE, ANNEXURE-C, IN, NO.LAQ(1), SR:25/86-87,,AS,LAPSED,AND,ETC.,,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking for a declaration that the notification dated 16.12.1987 issued by the respondents under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') has lapsed. Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the notification dated 09.01.1989 passed under Section 6(1) of the Act has lapsed.

¶2After hearing the matter for sometime, Sri. Janardhana G., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not insists on the prayer as sought for as referred above. It is submitted that the petitioner would limit his legal grievance insofar as compensation is concerned.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - Society who is the beneficiary, submits that the amount to enable passing of award has been remitted to the treasury and places reliance on Annexure-G which is an endorsement dated 10.09.2015.

¶4Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the proceedings have culminated in passing of award.

¶5In light of stand of the petitioner, question of adjudication insofar as the contentions relating to relief of lapse does not arise. However, right of the petitioner to claim the amount of compensation as has been awarded would be kept open and it is open for the petitioner to claim the same as per procedure. Insofar the assertion that copy of award has not been furnished, learned AGA submits that within two weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order, the copy of award would be communicated to the petitioner or his counsel.

¶6In light of the challenge to the acquisition having come to an end by virtue of stand of the petitioner as recorded, needless to state, the possession of the allottees would not be disturbed at the instance of the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶8In light of the observation made with regard to the possession of allottees, the question of passing orders on I.A.No.2/2025 does not arise and is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR

Source: High Court of Karnataka, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.