Purchase of Land After Acquisition Notification is Void Against State, Subsequent Purchaser Can't Challenge Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

Subsequent Purchaser Has No Right to Challenge Land Acquisition, Karnataka High Court Reiterates

---

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a petition filed by a man who purchased property 31 years after it was acquired by the government, firmly reiterating the established legal principle that a subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to challenge land acquisition proceedings.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while rejecting the plea of Sri. Manjunath K., observed that any sale of property after the issuance of an acquisition notification is void against the State, and the purchaser's rights are limited to claiming compensation.

Case Background

The dispute centered on a plot of land in Shettyhalli Village, Tumakuru Taluk, which was acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB). The preliminary notification for acquisition was issued on December 30, 1991, followed by a final notification on October 14, 1993.

The petitioner, Sri. Manjunath K., purchased the said property from the original owner's vendor on August 2, 2024. He then approached the High Court seeking to quash the decades-old acquisition notifications, arguing that the KHB had not developed the land and that the property records (Khatha) still stood in his vendor's name, leading him to believe the purchase was valid.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner's counsel argued that the failure of the KHB to utilize the land for its intended purpose and the continuous possession by the original owner justified the challenge against the acquisition.

Conversely, the counsel for the Karnataka Housing Board strongly opposed the petition. It was submitted that the acquisition process was legally concluded, and possession of the land was officially taken on September 23, 1996, under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court was informed that the petitioner's vendor had previously challenged the acquisition in 1999, but the case was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2000, and no steps were taken to revive it. Challenges by other landowners had also failed and were confirmed by a Division Bench, making the acquisition final. The KHB contended that the petitioner, being a purchaser 31 years post-acquisition, had no legal standing to file the current petition.

Court's Reliance on Settled Law

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in his order, extensively relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments to underscore the legal position. Citing landmark cases such as Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Shiv Kumar v. Union of India , the court highlighted the consistent view of the apex court.

The judgment extracted a key legal principle from previous rulings:

"It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril... any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State... free from all encumbrances."

The court noted that the petitioner "springs into action... 31 years after the Notification and 24 years after the rights of his vendor stood frozen."

Final Verdict

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court held that the law is "as clear as noon day." It ruled that the petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the validity of the acquisition by the Karnataka Housing Board.

While dismissing the plea, the court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation of his grievances to the respondents, to be considered in accordance with the law.