The acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation Act lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and failure to take possession, rendering subsequent notifications void and constituting fraud by public authorities.

ORDER :

1. In writ petition No.11578 of 2022, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 05^th April, 2022 (Annexure-M) passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.39 of 2021 by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru and Order dated 28^th October, 2021 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.1; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondents not to dispossess petitioners from the land in question.

2. In writ petition No.14493 of 2020, petitioners are challenging the order dated 21^st December, 2019 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.4 and Order dated 20^th December, 2019 (Annexure-F10) passed by the respondent No.1; inter alia sought for declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings initiated as per the Final Notification dated 26^th November, 2005 (Annexure-G) is void.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these petitions are referred to as per their ranking before this Court in Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. The relevant facts for adjudication of Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020 are as follows:

4.1. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Venkategowda and the land in question has been granted to the grandfather of petitioners viz., Bundegowda as per the order dated 14^th March, 1980 passed by the Land Tribunal. After the demise of the said Bundegowda, the revenue records in respect of the land in question transferred in favour of his son late Venkategowda (father of the petitioners). During the year-1981, the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board proposed to acquire the land in question to an extent of 2 acre 20 guntas out of 4 acre 37 guntas in Survey No.92 of Hootagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk for industrial purpose. It is also stated that the father of petitioners viz., late Venkategowda, during the year-1984 borrowed loan from one Mulagi M. Patel by executing a nominal Sale Deed without delivering the physical possession of the land. Thereafter, the said late Venkategowda cleared the loan and as such, the possession of land to an extent of 2 acre 17 guntas in Survey No.92 of Hootagalli Village, remained with late Venkategowda and his children. Further, it is averred in the writ petition that, son of the said Mulagi M. Patel viz., H.M. Patel filed Original Suit Nos.54 of 2004 and 94 of 2004 against late Venkategowda and others seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question. Thereafter, the said late Venkategowda and others, being a defendants in the aforesaid suits filed written statement and contended that the Sale Deed dated 15^th June, 1984 is only a nominal Sale Deed and as such, the said suits came to be dismissed on 04^th September, 2012.

4.2. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent-KIADB tried to interfere with the possession of late Venkategowda, father of petitioners in the land in question and therefore, father of petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 18^th August, 2008 (Annexure-C), dismissed the Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006, holding that the father of petitioners had already instit