1. Writ petitioners claim to be the owners of certain parcels of agricultural lands comprised in Sy No. 68 of Satagalli Village, Mysore Taluk and measuring in all 3 acres 27 guntas having inherited the same from their predecessors-in-title i.e. the husband of first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 6.

2. Petitioners have questioned the legality of acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority, particularly the act of second respondent, for the purpose of formation of Mahadevapura extension layout formed, during the year 1980 and for which purpose the subject lands to which the petitioners claiming ownership, having been taken over the MUDA, through consent acquisition proceedings, from respondents 3 to 10, on the premise that respondents 3 to 10 were the owners of this parcel of agricultural land and having so indicated in the notifications issued under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, for acquiring the lands.

3. It is in this background, petitioners have come approached this court with the following relief:

“To set aside the consent acquisition proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 with the consent of deceased Chikka Putta Bovi and respondent No.3 and respondent No.10 herein by allowing the above writ petition holding that the proceedings vide annexure ‘H’ dated 10/1/1990 bearing No. LAC MC 36/89-90 are illegal and vitiated one”

Contending that while they are the rightful owners of the subject land, the authority could not have acquired the title to the subject land from respondents 3 to 10 or from any one else and therefore the purchase if any made by the second respondent-authority for the purpose of formation of further extension of Mahadevapura layout in Mysore City, is vitiated, is not legal and have sought for setting aside the consent acquisition in so far as it relates to the land of which the petitioners are asserting ownership.

4. Notices had been issued to the respondents. First respondent state is represented by Sri N.B. Vishwanath, learned AGA and the second respondent authority is represented by Sri P.S. Manjunath, learned counsel respondents 3 to 19 are persons who, it is claimed, had effected the sale of the subject land in favour of the second respondent-authority claiming that they were the owners of the subject land. Respondents 4 and 5 are represented their counsel Sri K.L. Srinivas. Rest of the respondents though served are not represented before the court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently urge that the subject land was subject matter of civil litigation between the petitioner on the one side and the respondents 2 to 10 on the other; that in fact in a suit for declaration of title of the petitioners, the petitioners had succeeded before the court of first instance, but that decree for declaration of title in favour of the petitioners had been set aside in the appeal filed by the authority only on the ground of subsequent legal position viz., the subject land had already vested in the state government and there was no possibility of declaring the title in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and though the further appeal to this court by way of a second appeal in RSA No.3037 of 2007 came to be dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 4/3/208 passed by this court, but this court nevertheless having observed that it is open to the appellants therein to agitate their rights before an appropriate forum challenging the acquisition proceedings, if they are aggrieved by the same and taking cue from this observation, the petitioners have come up before this court with this writ petition contending that the sale of subject land in favour of the authority by respondents 3 to 10 cannot be sustained and the petitioners cannot be deprived of their lands as well as compensation payable, if the land should have been acquired by the authority.

7. Sta