It is not in dispute that there was litigation in respect of

suit property in O.S. No. 8 of 1997. During pendency of this

suit, the suit property was acquired and compensation has

been paid to the notified khatedhar.

2. In other words, compensation was paid to the person

in whose name revenue records stood as on the date of

acquisition. The above suit instituted by the petitioner was a

suit for declaration and the same was dismissed.

3. As against the said dismissal, an appeal was

preferred before this Court in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000. A

Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and passed

the following order:

"ORDER

(1)

The appeal is allowed.

(2)

The judgment and decree of the trial Court is

set aside.

4

(3)

The plaintiffs suit is decreed declaring that

the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit

schedule property in terms of the partition deed

dated 18.10.1970 which is marked as Ex.P.22.

(4)

Mutation

entries

made

by

revenue

authorities shall stand annulled and the revenue

authorities shall make entries in accordance with

the terms of the decree passed in this case.

(5) Insofar as compensation payable is concerned,

the plaintiffs to work out their remedy in

accordance with law."

4. The effect of this order is that the plaintiffs therein

have been declared as owners of the suit property. The

petitioner herein was the second plaintiff in the said suit.

This Court has also held that mutation entries made by

Revenue Authorities shall stand annulled and the Revenue

Authorities are required to make entries in accordance with

the terms of the decree.

5

5. It was the initial grievance of the petitioner in this

petition that despite the decree, the Revenue Authorities had

not mutated the name in accordance with the terms of the

decree. Subsequently, I.A. No.1 of 2022 was filed seeking for

amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. The amendment

sought for was to direct respondent Nos.5 and 6-The Special

Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Member of

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short,

'KIADB' respectively) to release the compensation amount in

respect of survey No.81 measuring 20 acres 12 guntas with

all statutory benefits, interest and damages to the petitioner.

6. In my view, since KIADB was a party to the order

passed in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000, I.A. No.1 of 2022 for

amendment would have to be allowed and it is accordingly

allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner to file amended

writ petition.

7. KIADB has filed an Affidavit today in which it is

stated as follows:

6

3.

"I state that, land bearing Sy No.81 of

Shanumangla was one of the lands acquired

by the State Government by a final notification

dated 15/07/1997 issued under section 28(4)

of the KIAD Act. The notified khathedar was

one Sri. H.P. Nagendra S/o H.L. Puttaih.

Accordingly the compensation amount of

Rs.86,10,000/- paid to him on 06/12/1997

by entering into agreement under 29(2) of the

Act coupled with indemnity Bond. The

Khathedar

has

also

furnished

Bank

Guarantee dated 06/12/1997 issued by State

Bank of India, SSI Branch, Kumara Park

West, Bengaluru-20. The copies of agreement,

indemnity Bond, payment receipt and Bank

Guarantee are herewith produced marked as

Annexure R1 to R4.

4.

I submit that, one Subedar Lingappa has filed

O.S.No.141/97 for reopening of the partition

and

O.S.No.8/1997

was

filed

by

B.C.

Puttaswamaih and others for the relief of

declaration. The said suits were dismissed on

30/10/2000.

7

5.

I submit that, in view of dismissal of suit the

Bank

Guarantee

furnished

by

aforesaid

H.P.Nagendra came to canceled by a

communication dated 06/11/2000 addressed

to the Bank. Further a sum of Rs.3,43,797/-

was

paid

to

Sri.H.P.

Nagendra

on

22/03/1999 towards Malkies by entering into

agreement and indemnity Bond. The copy of

the payment receipt for Rs.3,43,797/- is

herewith produced and marked as Annexure-

R5.

6.

I submit that, Sri. B.C. Puttaswamaih and

other filed RFA 1042/2000 on the