In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged

the Notification dated 10^th December, 1992 issued by the

respondent-authorities on the ground that said declaration

made by the respondent-authorities is non-est.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that the petitioners

claim to be owners in possession of the land bearing survey

No.4/1 in an extent of 6.00 acres and in an extent of 4.16 acres

in survey No.22/1 of Basavanahalli village and the respondent-

authorities issued the preliminary Notification dated 23^rd

December, 1991 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban

Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter

referred to as the KUDA Act’) proposing to acquire the property

belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of formation of

residential layout and distribution of sites. Subsequently, Final

Notification came to be issued under Section 19(1) of the Act

- 5 -

on 10^th December, 1992. It is the case of the petitioners that

respondent-authorities have not been given opportunity before

issuance of aforementioned notifications and also stated that

the respondent-authorities have abandoned the scheme and

the petitioners are in physical possession of the schedule land.

Accordingly, these two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners

impugning the Notifications referred to above.

3. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and filed detailed statement of objection contending that the

petitioners herein have challenged the preliminary Notification

dated 23^rd December, 1991 in Writ Petition No.12582 of 2005

and this Court, by order dated 04^th June, 2007 dismissed the

petition on merits and therefore, the present petition does not

survive for consideration and on the other hand, it was

contended that the petitioners herein have also filed Original

Suit No.156 of 2006 on the file of the II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and

JMFC Mysore, claiming identical relief, inter alia, sought for

injunctory relief and the said suit came to be dismissed on 11^th

July, 2011 and therefore, sought for dismissal of petitions with

exemplary cost.

- 6 -

4. In writ petition No.6749 of 2022, Sri S. Armugam,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that

the respondent-authorities have not implemented the scheme

and the possession of the schedule land is with the petitioners

and therefore the entire scheme lapses on account of

abandonment of the scheme and accordingly, sought for

interference of this Court. In Writ petition No.47429 of 2017,

Sri T.A. Karumbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended on the similar lines and argued that the

land belonging to the petitioners come under Section 24(2) of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for

brevity hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”) and therefore

sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 2 and 3 invited the attention of the

Court to the order dated 04^th June, 2007 in writ petition

No.12582 of 2005 and argued that it is a clear case of abuse of

process of law and therefore, the petitions be dismissed with

- 7 -

exemplary cost. He also submitted that the possession of the

property has been taken by respondent-authorities.

6. In the light of the submission made by learned

counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered

the prayer made in writ petition No.6749 of 2022. The same

reads as under:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or

direction quashing the entire land acquisition

proceedings vide No.VNE 837 MIB 92 dated

10.12.1992 at Annexure-B by the respondent

MUDA, in the interest of justice and equity;

(ii) Declare that the scheme under Final Notification

vide No.VNE 837 MIB 92 dated 10.12.1992 at

Annexure-B for the project of Vijayanagar IV

Stage, II Phase Layout stands lapsed in the

interest of justice and equity;

(iii) Quash the entries in the