1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

WRIT APPEAL NOS.754-756 OF 2015 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI T.N. CHANNANANJAPPA ALIAS CHANNANJAIAH

SON OF LATE NANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

2.

SRI T.N. PRAKASHAIAH

SON OF LATE NANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

3.

SRI T.G. PARAMESHAIAH

SON OF LATE GURUSIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

4.

SRI T.G. KUMARASWAMY

SON OF LATE GURUSIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

5.

SRI T.S. MARIYANNA

SON OF LATE SIDDANANJAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

2

6.

SRI T.S. GURULINGAIAH

SON OF LATE SIDDANANJAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF THYAGATUR VILLAGE

NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,

TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572223.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

M.S. BUILDING,

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

TUMAKURU DISTRICT,

TUMAKURU-572 105.

3.

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,

TUMAKURU-572 105.

4.

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI,

TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 223.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4)

3

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4

OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2015 PASSED IN WRIT

PETITION NOS.90-92 OF 2015 (LA-RES) AND ETC.

*****

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL

HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-2015 passed by

the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition

Nos.90-92 of 2015, the petitioners are in the appeal.

2. The case of the petitioners is that their lands

were sought to be acquired in terms of the preliminary

Notification issued in the year 1984 and the final

Notification in the year 1986 under the Karnataka

Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972.

The acquisition was challenged by them in writ petition

Nos.90-92 of 2015. By the order dated 20-1-2015, the

petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, the instant petitions

were filed on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as

4

no award was passed within two years as contemplated

under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act and for

consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge came to

the view that the petition is hit by the principles of

constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section

11 of C.PC. Hence, the petitions were dismissed.

Assailing the same, the instant appeals are filed.

3.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

appellants

contends that the principle of constructive res judicata

relied upon By the learned Single Judge is alien to the

case. That the question of constructive res judicata does

not arise. That the grounds urged in the subsequent writ

petitions are quite different than that urged earlier. The

same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate.

4.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the

view that appropriate relief is called for. The grounds

urged in the instant petitions were that the award has not

been passed within the stipulated period. The said ground

5

was not available to the petitioners as on the date they

filed the earlier writ petitions. Earlier the writ petitions

were only on the grounds of merits of the acquisition. The

instant grounds of delay in passing the award could not

have been taken by them in the earlier petitions. It is only

by efflux of time that the appellants got the right to

challenge the same on the ground of delay in passing the

award. Therefore, the applicability of the principles of

res judicta would not stand in the instant case. The plea of

the petitioners as to