HomeJudgement

Scroll Down To Discover

High Court

KAHC010306442014_1

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-08-24 15:47:26

Font size:

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010306442014_1

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (03) 5

WRIT PETITION Nos.38868-38870 OF 2015 (LA-UDA)

2016-03-10

Anand Byrareddy

L. Nageshwara Rao, B.L. Sanjeev, Madhusudhan R Naik, Laxminarayana, D. Nagaraja, S. Vijay Shankar, T.P. Vivekananda

K.M. Chikkathayamma, R. Krishna, R. Hema, Parimala, R. Umesha, T. Renuka, T. Preethi, P. Kiran, P. Santosh, P. Sunil

The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department; The Mysore Urban Development Authority; The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority

Nature of Litigation

Land acquisition proceedings challenged, seeking declaration of lapse under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act, and quashing of awards/notifications

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged non-compliance with provisions of the 2013 Act leading to deemed lapse of acquisition

Issues

Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the BDA Act and UDA Act have lapsed by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

Procedural History

The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the land acquisition proceedings and seeking declaration of lapse under the 2013 Act. The petitions were taken up together and heard by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24
Bangalore Development Authority Act: Section 17(1), Section 19(1)
Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227

One-Time Download (₹149 ₹99) Get Subscription

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Supreme Court Supreme Court Considers Writ Petition Challenging 1992 Amendment to Rajasthan Colonisation Rules for Pong Dam Oustees. Petition Sought Quashing of Notification and Directions for Khatedari Rights, Cancellation Withdrawal, and Allotment to Left-Out Ou... 2026-09-17 15:20:20

High Court High Court Upholds Decree Directing Plaintiffs in an Agricultural Land Dispute to Restore Possession to Defendants Despite Absence of Counterclaim. The High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the... 2026-09-17 15:20:18

KAHC010306442014_1

Issue of Consideration

Case Details

Nature of Litigation

Remedy Sought

Filing Reason

Issues

Procedural History

Acts & Sections

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Dismisses MBBS Student's Writ Petition Seeking Fourth Attempt in Anatomy...

High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Tenancy Orders Under Bombay Tenancy ...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order Appointing Different Arbitrator Under Section 11 o...

Supreme Court Upholds Scrutiny Committee Invalidation of Scheduled Tribe Caste Claim but P...

Supreme Court Allows Homebuyers' Appeal and Waives Time Extension Charges Imposed by Devel...

Supreme Court Dismisses Insurer's and Claimant's Appeals in Motor Accident Death Compensat...