Subsequent purchasers post-notification under the Land Acquisition Act cannot challenge acquisition proceedings, as such sales are deemed void and they may only seek compensation.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"i. WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

i. Issue the Writ of certiorari to quash the final notification bearing No 1993, at Serial No.10, for acqutisiton of Land in Sy.No.15/6, of Shettyhalli Village, Tumakuru Taluk, published in the name of Sri.Siddaiah S/o Marisiddaiah, with respect to site No.39 of the petitioner measuring East to West -51 feet and North to south 30 feet, in totoatl 1530Sq.feet, now comes under Jayanagara west, Tumakuru City, published by the 1st respondent, the State of Karnataka, department of Department of Revenue, MS Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru, Rep. by its Principal Secretry vide ANNEXURE-W.

ii. Issue the Writ of certiorari to quash the Preliminary notification bearing No: 1991, at Serial No. 15, for acqutisiton of Land in Sy.No. 15/6, of Shettyhalli Village, Tumakuru Taluk, published in the name of Sri.Siddaiah S/o. Marisiddaiah, with respect to site No.39 of the petitioner measuring East to West -51 feet and North to south 30 feet, in totoatl 1530Sq feet, now comes under Jayanagara west, Tumakuru City, published by the 1^st respondent, the State of Karnataka, department of Department of Revenue, MS Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru, Rep. by its Principal Secretary vide ANNEXURE-V.

iii. Declare that the acquisition proceedings, initiated by the respondents, in Sy.No.15/6, of Shettyhalli Village, Tumakuru Taluk, published in the name of Sri.Siddaiah S/o. Marisiddaiah, with respect to site No.39 of the petitioner measuring East to West -51 feet and North to south 30 feet, in totoatl 1530 Sq.feet, now comes under Jayanagara west, Tumakuru City, lapses.

iv. Pass any other order or orders, or issue any other writ or writs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit it necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Sri. Siddaramaiah V.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior counsel for Miss. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner is said to be the purchaser of the property, which is the subject matter of acquisition by the Karnataka Housing Board. The Karnataka Housing Board issues a Preliminary Notification on 30.12.1991 and a Final Notification thereon 14.10.1993. The acquisition proceedings is said to have become final in accordance with law.

4. The vendor of the petitioner initially calls the acquisition process in question being petitioner No.6 in W.P.Nos.19697-710/1999. The said writ petitions come to be dismissed for its non-prosecution on 16.06.2000. The petitioner does not seek recall of the said order. The other petitioners file another writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.3434-42/2002. The said writ petitions come to be dismissed on 27.05.2003. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.3434-42/2002 challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petitions before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1571/2007. The Writ Appeal comes to be dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Appeal is said to have become final. Thus ended the challenge of the landowners against the acquisition in the aforesaid dates. The petitioner was nowhere in the picture. The petitioner comes into the picture when his vendor sells the property to the petitioner in the year 2024 i.e., on 02.08.2024, which is 31 years after the acquisition on the score that the petitioner is still in possession of the property.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 - the Karnataka Housing Board having acquired the property, had not developed the property and therefore, the pe