Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Karnataka High Court examines claims of land acquisition lapsing under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in writ petitions against Bangalore Development Authority and Mysore Urban Development Authority. The petitioners sought declarations that acquisition had lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, citing non-compliance with statutory timelines.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-08-03 01:34:48
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (03) 30

W.P.Nos.38868-38870/2015, W.P.Nos.38871-38874/2015, W.P.Nos.35858 & 35880-35881/2013, W.P.No.82/2015, W.P.Nos.26980-26982/2015, W.P.No.83/2015, W.P.Nos.15616-15620/2013, W.P.No.40076/2014

2016-03-10

Anand Byrareddy

L. Nageshwara Rao, B.L. Sanjeev, V. Lakshminarayana, Vikram Balaji B.L., Shilpa Rani, C.M. Nagabhushan, Rajeswara P.N., H.R. Narayana Rao, Ashok Haranahalli, Manmohan P.N., S.M. Chandrashekhar, Ramesh T.R., Madhusudhan R Naik, Laxminarayana, D. Nagaraja, S. Vijay Shankar, T.P. Vivekananda, K. Krishna, C.R.G.

Smt. K.M.Chikkathayamma & Ors. (W.P.38868-38870/2015), Smt. Shivamma & Ors. (W.P.38871-38874/2015), Sri. Viswanatha Reddy & Ors. (W.P.35858 & 35880-35881/2013), Sri. M. Jagadish (W.P.82/2015), Narasimha Reddy .N & Ors. (W.P.26980-26982/2015), Smt. T.K.Shilpashree (W.P.83/2015), Sri. Ramachandra & Ors. (W.P.15616-15620/2013), Sri. L. Chandrashekar & Anr. (W.P.40076/2014)

State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department; State of Karnataka, Housing and Urban Development Department; Mysore Urban Development Authority; Bangalore Development Authority; Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA; Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings as having lapsed under the 2013 Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners seeking declaration that acquisitions have lapsed and quashing of notifications, and in one case, issuance of No Objection Certificate.

Filing Reason

Alleged non-compliance with Section 24 of the 2013 Act, leading to deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings.

Issues

Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Judgment Excerpts

praying to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the schedule lands belonging to the petitioners have been lapsed by virtue of the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24
  • Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: Section 17(1), Section 19(1)
  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226, Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
land acquisition lapse Section 24 BDA MUDA writ petition Articles 226 and 227 2013 Act

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court examines claims of land acquisition lapsing under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in writ petitions against Bangalore Development Authority and Mysore Urb... 2026-08-03 01:34:48
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Tenants' Petition in Rent Control Case — Permission to Evict Set Aside for Lack of Evidence on Tenancy Month and Breach. Landlord Failed to Prove Habitual Default Under Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of ... 2026-08-03 01:34:44
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition acquittal natural justice murder compensation burden of proof limitation benefit of doubt Article 226 Land Acquisition
Follow Us

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 at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment Case — ...

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and La...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against Madras High Court’s Setting Aside of Alienations and...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals on Permanent Establishment of Formula One World Championship L...

Supreme Court Interprets Scope of 'Child' under POCSO Act in Appeal Concerning Mentally Ch...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against High Court Decrees in Malankara Church Disputes. Rival...

Supreme Court Directs State Governments to Implement National Food Security Act, 2013 Mand...

Lost Your Password?