A petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition for disbursement of land acquisition compensation or a statutory reference based on an unregistered and partially cancelled agreement of sale, particularly when the underlying civil title dispute is not conclusively decided and the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF)

The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.11630/2021 is before us in this Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 , challenging the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Court under the impugned order, rejected the Writ Petition.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

The petitioner was before the Writ Court seeking a direction for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing consideration of the representations of the petitioner dated 05.07.2019, 26.12.2019 and 18.03.2021 and disbursement of compensation for the acquisition of subject land to the petitioner. Alternatively, he sought direction to respondents 1 and 2 to make a reference to the jurisdictional Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the claim for compensation.

4. The case of the petitioner as put forth before the Writ Court is, the third respondent purchased the subject property in Sy.No.42/3 of Meda Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 01 Acre 06 Guntas on 17.02.2005. On 22.09.2005, the third respondent further purchased another property bearing Sy.No.42/2 of the same area measuring 20 Guntas. Subsequent to purchase, both the afore-mentioned lands stood in the name of the third respondent - C.Shivaraju and all revenue and statutory entries were transferred to his name. As things stood thus, the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) issued Preliminary Notification on 30.12.2008 for acquiring vast areas of land for formation of 'Dr.Shivaram Karanth Layout', which also included aforementioned lands.

5. Pursuant to issuance of Preliminary Notification, other Writ Petitioners were before the Writ Court and during the pendency of the said Writ Petitions, the present petitioner and another enters into an agreement for sale for a sale consideration of Rs.1,40,40,000/- and transfers an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- in favor of the third respondent on 05.01.2012. However, on 05.07.2012, the agreement holder gets a part of the agreement cancelled on receiving back Rs.12,50,000/- by executing cancellation deed. Though the agreement was cancelled in part, but the major part of the agreement was still in subsistence. As per the agreement, 6 months time was provided to execute the sale deed. As the sale deed was not executed, the petitioners filed a bare suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.1552/2012 before the concerned jurisdictional Court restraining the third respondent from alienating the properties. Later, an amendment was sought for the relief of specific performance of an agreement. By an order dated 14.07.2023, the Civil Court allowed the amendment and in view of the value being exceeded as stated in the agreement of sale, the plaint was ordered to be returned to present before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, which reads as under:

"ORDER

Acting under order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure plaint presented by the plaintiff is hereby returned for presentation before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru Rural Distinct, Bengaluru.

The plaintiff shall present the plaint before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru Rural Distinct, Bengaluru on or before 14.08.2023.

Office is directed to close the case in the concerned register.

Office is directed to return the plaint by taking acknowledgement receipt