Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19909

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Supreme Build Cap Limited – Appellant
Versus
Subham Properties Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
WP No. 14787 of 2013 (LA-KIADB)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jayakumar.S.Patil, P.N.Rajeswara
For the Respondents: Brijesh Patil, Saritha Kulkarni, B.B.Patil, Preetham P.S.

A writ petition cannot be entertained to challenge an order that has already reached finality through previous litigation and appellate review to which the petitioner was a party. Disputes involving complex questions of land ownership and fact-based claims are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Challenge to an order of a co-ordinate bench - Maintainability - When an order passed by a co-ordinate bench has attained finality and has been confirmed in appeal, it is impermissible to challenge the same through an independent writ petition - Petitioner is estopped from re-litigating findings that have already been adjudicated and become binding upon them. (Paras 21, 23)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Res Judicata - Collateral challenge - A petitioner who was a party to earlier proceedings where a specific point was decided cannot seek to nullify those findings in subsequent litigation - Principles of finality of judicial proceedings must be respected to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 7, 21)

(C) Civil Procedure - Disputed questions of fact - Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for determining complex or disputed questions of title or interference with possession - Parties must approach the competent Civil Court for such adjudication. (Paras 26, 28)

Facts of the case:
The present petition was filed seeking to set aside an order passed years earlier by a co-ordinate bench, which had dismissed a previous petition regarding acquisition proceedings. The petitioner, having been a party to a subsequent appeal concerning the same subject matter, sought to challenge the legality of the original dismissal, alleging that it was based on misstatements of fact, and requested protection for its activities on the land. Respondents argued that the issues had already attained finality and the petitioner's standing was barred by previous judicial pronouncements.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the issues raised had been thoroughly litigated in the previous round, during which the relevant authorities had clarified their stance. The division bench, in a prior appeal, had reached a conclusive finding regarding the acquisition status of the land. The court observed that the petitioner was a party to those proceedings and failed to challenge those findings then, rendering the current attempt a clear case of attempting to circumvent final orders.

Issues: Whether an order passed by a co-ordinate bench that has attained finality and been affirmed by an appellate bench can be challenged through a fresh writ petition, and whether the petition involves disputed questions of fact that warrant adjudication by a civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial orders that have attained finality and have been affirmed by an appellate court are binding on parties to the proceedings and cannot be collaterally challenged via new writ petitions. Furthermore, since the matter involves complex and disputed questions concerning land identity and possession, it is not suitable for resolution under writ jurisdiction.

Result: Petition dismissed; liberty reserved to approach the competent Civil Court.

Table of Content
1. challenge to acquisition notifications and judicial finality of previous orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. res judicata and binding effect of division bench appellate orders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
3. dismissal of writ petition due to non-locus standi and availability of civil remedies. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2005 IN W.P.No.13808/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AS IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER THOUGH THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction to set aside order dated 23.08.2005 in WP No.13808/2005 (Annexure-A) by this Hon’ble Court as it adversely affects the interest of the petitioner though the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to give protection to the petitioner to carry on the activity in the land at Sy.No.46/3 of Devarabeesanahalli Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 0-08 guntas bounded on the east by Sy.No.42 west by Ring Road North by Ring Road and south by Sy.No.43 as per Lease cum Sale Agreement dated 06.07.2005 (Annexure-V); and

iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit including the award of costs in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 and 5 and learned counsels for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 and perused the material on record.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition as contended by the petitioner are as under:

The petitioner claims to have been allotted 14 acres 32.5 guntas of land including 8 guntas in Sy.No.46/3 situated at Deverabeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, by respondent Nos.3 and 4 – KIADB vide Allotment letter and Possession Certificate dated 15.06.2004 and 16.06.2004 issued by the KIADB in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the respondent No.1 herein preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.13808/2005 against the State of Karnataka by arraying it as respondent No.1 and KIADB and its SLAO as respondent Nos.2 and 3 and without impleading or arraying the petitioner herein as a party to the said petition in W.P.No.13808/2005, in which the respondent No.1 herein sought for quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of 12 guntas of land purchased by the respondent No.1 herein. The said W.P.No.13808/2005 was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 23.08.2005, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record including the impugned order in order to contend that this Court dismissed W.P.No.13808/2005 by recording the inaccurate, incorrect and erroneous misstatement of fact made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 – KIADB that the 12 guntas of land which was described by respondent No.1 – writ petitioner in the said W.P.No.13808/2005 as petition schedule property had not been acquired by the KIADB.

5. It is submitted that the said 12 guntas of land which was claimed by respondent No.1 herein – writ petitioner as petition schedule property was subject matter of the acquisition proceedings and covered by the Preliminary Notification dated 10.12.2001 and Final Notification dated 24.03.2004, which was in relation to land bearing Survey No.46/3 measuring 8 guntas and the K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19909

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.Krishna Kumar, JSupreme Build Cap Limited – AppellantVersusSubham Properties Pvt. Ltd – RespondentWP No. 14787 of 2013 (LA-KIADB)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Supreme Build Cap Limited – Appellant
Versus
Subham Properties Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
WP No. 14787 of 2013 (LA-KIADB)