Lack of objection in prior acquisition proceedings bars later claims for de-notification by landowners, affirming the finality of judicial orders.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

"a. To issue writ of certiorari, any other appropriate writ, or order or direction quashing impugned order (Annexure-F) dated 20-05-2024, in proceedings bearing KNKC No.169/2022, 170/2022, 171/2022, 172/2022 and 176/2022, issued by the 2^nd respondent, and grant such reliefs this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

b. Declare that the schedule property has been dropped from acquisition in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.2757/2005 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs. Bangalore development authority and others, 2010 (7) SCC 129. And as per final Notification Dated:18/06/2014, Bearing No.UDD426 MSJ/2011.

c. Grant Such Other And Further Reliefs."

2. Petitioners are said to be the owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos.17/1, 18, 19, 20 and 26 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore, in all measuring 26 acres 12 guntas, which has been described as 'the schedule property' in the writ petition along with its boundaries. The said properties along with a large chunk of other lands were proposed to be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') for the purpose of formation of 'Arkavathi Layout' for which a Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2003 was issued and Final Notification dated 23.02.2004 came to be issued.

3. Smt. Divya Devi, wife of the first petitioner and the mother of second and third petitioners had filed her objection dated 17.03.2003 seeking deletion of the above lands from acquisition. Without considering the objections, the Final Notification dated 23.02.2004 came to be issued.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 along with their late Mother Smt. Divya Devi had entered into a scheme i.e., joint development of their lands in the year 1998 with M/s. Tata Housing Development Corporation Limited (for short 'M/s. THDCL'). A general power of attorney was executed by Smt. Divya Devi in favour of M/s. THDCL.

5. M/s.THDCL had challenged the final notification dated 23.02.2004 in Writ Petition No.25807/2004. A batch of writ petitions were filed by various landowners. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the Final Notification dated 23.02.2004. The said judgment and order dated 15.04.2005 setting aside the Final Notification was challenged by the BDA in W.A.Nos.2624-2626/2005. M/s. THDCL also filed Writ Appeal No.2757/2005 challenging the observations made in the judgment and order in W.P.No.25807/2004. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2005 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.2624-2626/2005 disposed of the said Writ Appeals with following observations :-

"106. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following:

ORDER

(A)…………………………………………………………………

(B)………………………………………………………………….

(C)…………………………………………………………………..

(D) Insofar as the landowners excluding the site owners, are entitled to the following reliefs:

(i) All the petitioners who are the landowners who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings insofar as their respective lands are concerned, on the ground that:

(a) their lands are situated within green belt area;

(b) they are totally built up;

(c) properties wherein there are buildings constructed by charitable, educational and/or religious institutions;

(d) nursery lands;

(e) who have set up factories;

(f) their lands are similar to the lands which are adjoining their lands but not notified for acquisition at all, are permitted to make app