Key Points: - The judgment discusses res judicata and its applicability to Public Interest Litigations, including Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC and the principle that previous PILs can bar subsequent petitions if issues were exhausted (Somashekar Reddy) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes whether excess land for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project was acquired, and holds that land was not in excess and acquisition followed KIAD Act for a public project of great importance (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It outlines the KIAD Act’s eminent domain powers and the need to balance public interest with property rights, upholding broad public purpose for the project while cautioning against arbitrariness and mala fides (!) (!) . - It reviews the legal framework for Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 and explains the High Court’s mandamus-style relief to implement the FWA "in letter and spirit" for public interest projects (!) (!) (!) . - It summarizes that the project is in the larger public interest of Karnataka and that changes in government should not automatically halt such ongoing projects (!) (!) . - The Court dismisses the land acquisition challenges as lacking substance and affirms the High Court’s decision upholding the land acquisitions (!) (!) (!) .

How to determine whether res judicata applies to Public Interest Litigations in the context of a large public infrastructure project?

What is the scope of the State’s powers under the KIAD Act to acquire land for a public project and when can they be exercised to the detriment of private property rights?

What are the standards for reviewing State actions under Article 226 in writ petitions challenging public policy decisions and contracts in the context of a megaproject?