Bengaluru (Karnataka): The Karnataka High Court has quashed the acquisition of more than 10 acres of land in Hosahalli village of Bengaluru South Taluk, holding that the nearly four-decade-old acquisition proceedings were allegedly vitiated by fraud, suppression of material facts and manipulation of official records. The court observed that serious discrepancies in documents relating to the acquisition and compensation process cast significant doubt on the legality of the entire proceedings. It also set aside the order of a single judge, who had dismissed the landowner’s petition on the ground that the acquisition had attained finality in 1989.
A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf allowed the appeal filed by landowner V. Sreenivasaiah and quashed the single judge’s order dated February 25, 2025. The earlier order had dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs of ₹1.5 lakh on the petitioner. Sreenivasaiah contended that he continued to remain in possession of the land and that neither a valid award had been passed nor any compensation had been paid despite the acquisition proceedings.
The dispute relates to two land parcels measuring more than 10 acres in Hosahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. The land had been proposed for acquisition for the Ex-servicemen House Building Cooperative Society. During the hearing, the High Court referred to the findings of the G.V.K. Rao Committee, constituted by the Karnataka government to examine the functioning of house-building cooperative societies. The committee had reportedly identified several irregularities in the affairs of the society and recommended that the proposed acquisition be dropped. It also suggested that the society either identify alternative land within its jurisdiction or refund the money collected from its members.
The Division Bench noted that it had undertaken a detailed examination of the records despite earlier adverse judicial orders against the appellant. The court observed that no person ordinarily risks substantial litigation costs unless genuinely aggrieved by a serious injustice or alleged fraud, making a thorough scrutiny of the records necessary.
During the proceedings, the bench also took note of an endorsement dated February 9, 2023, issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, stating that records relating to the consent award, payment of compensation and deposit of compensation before the jurisdictional court were unavailable. The court considered the absence of these crucial records a significant factor undermining the legality of the acquisition process.
The High Court further observed that the compensation had allegedly been paid not to the actual landowner but to the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the cooperative society. It was also brought to the court’s notice that the concerned GPA holder was absconding and that no valid GPA document supporting the payment could be traced. The bench reiterated that in compulsory land acquisition cases, payment of compensation is the responsibility of the State, and such irregularities seriously affect the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that the matter was not merely a question of finality of earlier litigation but involved allegations of fraud, suppression of material facts and manipulation of official records. It therefore held that the acquisition proceedings could not be sustained in law and deserved to be quashed in the interest of justice.
According to the Future Crime Research Foundation, land-related fraud involving forged documents, manipulation of official records and irregularities in compensation procedures continues to generate prolonged legal disputes across the country. Experts recommend maintaining digital land records, ensuring independent verification of ownership and compensation, and conducting regular audits of acquisition proceedings. They also advise citizens to thoroughly verify revenue records, registration documents and court records before purchasing land or investing in disputed properties to minimise the risk of property fraud.
