ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings initiated by the respondents/Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore (‘MUDA’ for short) in terms of notification dated 13-03-1961 in respect of land of the petitioners on the score that acquisition had lapsed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and have sought certain consequential reliefs. 2. Heard Sri T.A.Karumbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Seshu V., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri V. S. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The father of the 1 st petitioner, father-in-law of the 2 nd petitioner and grand father of petitioners 3 and 4, is said to have owned land measuring 2 acres 08 guntas including kharab in Sy.No.36/1 of Eeranagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The then State of Mysore is said to have issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 declaring acquisition to the extent of 2 acres and 8 guntas of land which is claimed to be belonging to the father of the 1 st petitioner for public purpose viz., play-ground to the students of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The notification was issued on 31-10-1961. It appears that the 4 th respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer of MUDA on 13-09-1964 is said to have communicated to the 2 nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, a report which is drawn on conduct of spot inspection along with Agricultural Officer on 06-08-1964 opining that the land of the petitioners is not suitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, giving the reason that a high-tension wire runs through center of the land. Communications are exchanged between the Departments concerned. Based upon the aforesaid communications, the Deputy Commissioner addresses a letter to the 4 th respondent to take possession of 2/3 rd of the land acquired measuring 1 acre 18 guntas, which is adjacent to Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya. The contention now is, even though acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1961, award is not passed and compensation is not determined. The further averment in the petition is that the Deputy Commissioner and the Social Welfare Department have exchanged communications observing release of funds for payment of compensation, to whom is not indicated. The contention now is, even though acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1961, award is not passed and compensation is not determined. The further averment in the petition is that the Deputy Commissioner and the Social Welfare Department have exchanged communications observing release of funds for payment of compensation, to whom is not indicated. Today, the land that was acquired, is now being utilized for the purpose of construction of hostels to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students. 4. After about 40 years, a writ petition comes to be filed before this Court in Writ Petition No.10180 of 2007 challenging acquisition proceedings, on the score that no compensation is paid to the petitioners. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court if they are not successful in getting compensation from the hands of the civil Court. Then comes the new Land Acquisition Act. Again, springs the subject petition on the ground that compensation is not paid. Therefore, mandamus is sought, declaring acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the communications between the Departments from 1961 to 1980 or even on 19-03-1990 are all indicative of the fact that acquisition proceedings initiated against the petitioners have not been taken to their logical conclusion. He would contend that under Section 24(2) the acquisition has stood lapsed and the petitioners are entitled to compensation, which has to be determined under the new Act. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent/Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya takes this Court through plethora of documents to defeat the claim of the petitioners. According to him, preliminary notification was issued on 13-03-1961 under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a final notification thereon was also issued. However, due to technical reason, on the report of the Assistant Commissioner, 30 guntas of land was left out and acquisition of 1 acre 18 guntas was completed. Original owner late Sanjeevaiah filed Writ Petition No.22290 of 1981 challenging the acquisition and accepted the fact that there was no objection to acquisition. A learned single Judge dismissed the petition and dismissal goes up to the Apex Court. Original owner late Sanjeevaiah filed Writ Petition No.22290 of 1981 challenging the acquisition and accepted the fact that there was no objection to acquisition. A learned single Judge dismissed the petition and dismissal goes up to the Apex Court. A second attempt is made by the wife of Sanjeevaiah to challenge the acquisition in Writ Petition No.10180 of 2007. This Court does not determine anything, but directs to approach the Court after the petitioners therein would fail to get compensation. Third attempt comes to made by the son of late S.Sanjeevaiah by one more writ petition in Writ Petition No.31576 of 2011 seeking reconveyance of the land. This also comes to be disposed to get the joint survey conducted. A writ appeal is filed later only to be dismissed. With all these, now the claim springs when the land is levelled for the purpose of renovation or reconstruction of the hostel for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is at that point in time, the petitioners along with their henchmen have created ruckus in the land, which led the 5 th respondent to register a crime in Crime No.14 of 2020 wherein the Police have filed the charge sheet. On all these, he would submit that the petitioners have abused the process of law repeatedly and the present petition is filed suppressing all the earlier orders. He would submit that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs. The other respondents would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. A preliminary notification is issued on 13-03-1961 by the Government of Mysore seeking acquisition of 2 acres 08 guntas of land of the petitioners. The notification reads as follows: “KUD 2 led 61 DATED 13-03-1961 WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Mysore that the land specified below is likely to be needed, for the public purpose, to wit for construction of Educational Institutions and Playgrounds attached to Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya, Mysore. The notification reads as follows: “KUD 2 led 61 DATED 13-03-1961 WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Mysore that the land specified below is likely to be needed, for the public purpose, to wit for construction of Educational Institutions and Playgrounds attached to Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya, Mysore. Notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Mysore Act No.VII of 1984). Under Section 5-A of the said Act, any person interested in the land may, within thirty days from the date of publication of this Notification in the Mysore Gazette, prefer his objections, if any, in writing to the Deputy Commissioner, for consideration. Objections received after the said period will not be considered. A plan of the land is kept in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore for inspection. Mysore District, Mysore Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Veeranagere Village Survey No.36-1, in the khata and anubhava of Sri Sanjeeva Naika, Son of Chowdaiah, and bounded on the North by Survey No.46, South by Survey No.35, East by Survey No.36-2 and West by Suvey No.37, the area required being 2 acres 8 guntas, assessed at Rs.2.94. By order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore.” It is averred in the petition that, after the preliminary notification a communication comes about between the office of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. It reads as follows: “Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, Dated, Mysore, 13 th September, 1964. To The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore. Sir, Sub: Acquisition of land in S.No.36 of Veeranagere Village, Mysore Taluk for construction of educational institution – play ground attached to the Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya. Ref: 1. Your letter No.L.Dis.B2.PR.375-C-6400/63 dated 26-04-1964. 2. Letter No.5394 dated 11-08-1964 from the Executive Engineer, PWD, Mysore Division, Mysore. 3. Letter Nos. C4.4505/64 dated 21-08-1964 from the District Agriculture Officer, Mysore District, Mysore. 4. Letter No.9795 dated 21-08-1964 and 11076 dated 8-09-1964 from the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Mysore. -- I write to state that I have inspected the land under reference with the Executive Engineer, PWD and the District Agricultural Officer, Mysore on 06-08-1964. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Mysore has inspected the spot independently and furnished his opinion. 4. Letter No.9795 dated 21-08-1964 and 11076 dated 8-09-1964 from the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Mysore. -- I write to state that I have inspected the land under reference with the Executive Engineer, PWD and the District Agricultural Officer, Mysore on 06-08-1964. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Mysore has inspected the spot independently and furnished his opinion. The land proposed for acquisition is not suitable for the purpose and I agree with the opinion furnished by the Officers of Technical Department. The letters cited above are enclosed in original for favour of reference. Action will be taken separately under C.C.A. Rules against the Revenue Inspector concerned for having not noted the particulars at the time of building up the acquisition records. I, therefore, request you kindly to move Government for the withdrawal of acquisition. A detailed report has already been submitted with this office letter of even number dated 06-12-1963. The concerned records accompany. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Assistant Commissioner.” Again, a communication springs on 14-07-1980. It reads as follows: “No. 6/BAQ/PR/80-81 Office of the Deputy Commissioner, (Social Welfare Branch), Mysore District, Mysore, dated 14 th July 1980. To The Director of Social Welfare in Karnataka Bangalore-1. Sir, Sub: Acquisition of land in Sy.No.36/1 of Veeranagere Village, Mysore Taluk release of funds by the S.W.D pending finalization since last 10 years – reg. Ref: A.C., Mysore letter No.LAC 55/61-62 dated 7.06.1980. --- The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore vide his letter cited above has stated that acquisition of S.No.36/1 of Veeranagere Village, Mysore Taluk acquired in favour of the Social Welfare Department for Dalitha Vidyarthinilaya as the compensation is pending for settlement. Hence, I request you to release amount of Rs. 11,888/- in favour of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore towards the acquisition cost for immediate settlement during this year 1980-81. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For Deputy Commissioner Mysore District, Mysore.” The writ petition is premised on the aforesaid communications for entitlement of compensation. The suppression of facts galore in the case at hand. 9. The narration in the petition stops at the preliminary notification, while the final notification under Section 6(1) was issued immediately on 31-10-1961 itself. After issuance of final notification, award is passed determining compensation. The determination reads as follows: “No.R2 LAC.55/61-62 Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Dated, Mysore, 2 nd July 1969. To The President, Dalitha Vidyarti Nilaya, Mysore. The narration in the petition stops at the preliminary notification, while the final notification under Section 6(1) was issued immediately on 31-10-1961 itself. After issuance of final notification, award is passed determining compensation. The determination reads as follows: “No.R2 LAC.55/61-62 Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Dated, Mysore, 2 nd July 1969. To The President, Dalitha Vidyarti Nilaya, Mysore. Sir, Sub: Acquisition of land in S.No.36/1 of Veerangere for construction of Educational Institutions and playgrounds etc. – Award passed. Ref: 1).O.M.NO.LAQ PR 258/68-69 dated 24-02-1969 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore passing the award etc. -- I wish to inform you that a sum of Rs.11,888/- as detailed below has been awarded to the acquisition of 1 acre 18 guntas of land I n S.No.36/1 of Veeranagere Village, Mysore Taluk: 1) Land Value for (1-18) acres at Rs.4,350-00 Rs.3,000/- per acre. 2) Value of Plants Rs.04,310-00 3) Malki value Rs.160-00 4) Water-rate Rs. 900-00 5) S.A. 15% Rs.1,308-00 6) Sugarcane value Rs. 860-00 Total Rs.11,888-00 Yours faithfully, Sd/- Assistant Commissioner Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore.” Subsequent to the award, the Social Welfare Department issued orders for payment of compensation of Rs.11,888/- to Sri Sanjeeva Naik whose land has been acquired for playground and additional space for expansion of Dalitha Vidyarti Hostel building. The above amount is placed at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner. The order dated 13-10-1980 reads as follows: “Proceedings of the Director of Social Welfare in Karnataka, Bangalore. ----- Sub: Sanction of acquisition charges – acquisition of land in Sy.No.36 of Veeranagere Village, Mysore Taluk in favour of Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya, Mysore. Ref: Government order No.SWL 27 BLQ 78, dated 21/23-10-1980. -- No.DSW/BLD/8/PR.60/76-77 Bangalore, Dt. 13-10-1980. ORDER SA sum of Rs.11,888/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Eight only) is released towards compensation to be paid to Sri Sanjeeva Naik, whose land has been acquired for the playground and additional space for expansion of Dalitha Vidharthi Nilaya Hostel Building, Veeranagere Village, Mysore Taluk. The above amount is placed at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore utilized before March, 1981. The expenditure on the above is debitable to “288 Social Security and Welfare-C-2-Welfare of Sch.Caste-A-Education XXX.III-Financial Assistance to Voluntary Agencies for construction of Hostel Buildings” plan 1980-81. Sd/- G.MUNIYAPPA Director of Social Welfare.” 10. The father of the 1 st petitioner immediately challenges the acquisition before this Court in Writ Petition No.22290 of 1981. The expenditure on the above is debitable to “288 Social Security and Welfare-C-2-Welfare of Sch.Caste-A-Education XXX.III-Financial Assistance to Voluntary Agencies for construction of Hostel Buildings” plan 1980-81. Sd/- G.MUNIYAPPA Director of Social Welfare.” 10. The father of the 1 st petitioner immediately challenges the acquisition before this Court in Writ Petition No.22290 of 1981. The writ petition comes to be dismissed by the following order: “This petition should be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching this Court. The impugned proceedings took place sometime in the year 1969. That apart, the petitioner has also suppressed the material facts in the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice since the enquiry was held without proper notice to him. The original records are produced before this Court and it is seen that the petitioner had presented his claim statement regarding the land in question on 2.01.1962. In that statement he has said that he would have no objection for the acquisition proceedings and also he has no objection to take the compensation partly in cash and partly in land at an upset price if some other land was given to him in a suitable place. From this claim statement filed by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, the only inference that could be drawn is that the petitioner was aware of the impugned proceedings in the year 1962 and therefore, the petitioner should not be permitted to challenge the validity of the impugned proceedings after a lapse of nearly 20 years. 2. It may be, at the relevant time, the President of Dalita Vidyarthi Nilaya was the brother of the then Minister for Revenue in the State of Karnataka. But, that by itself is not a ground to take the view that the impugned proceedings are vitiated by bias or extraneous consideration. In the circumstances, there is no good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.” 19 years passed by. Second attempt is made by the wife of S. Sanjeevaiah who had lost two cases as afore-quoted, seeking compensation for the acquired land. In the circumstances, there is no good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.” 19 years passed by. Second attempt is made by the wife of S. Sanjeevaiah who had lost two cases as afore-quoted, seeking compensation for the acquired land. The case in Writ Petition No.10180 of 2007 comes to be dismissed as withdrawn by the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach this Court if they are not successful in getting the compensation from the Civil Court. 2. The said submission is placed on record. 3. Permission sought for is granted. 4. Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” Now the fourth attempt is made by the children of Sanjeevaiah in Writ Petition No.31576 of 2011. The prayer in the writ petition was to give effect to a memo which was 42 years old then. The prayer reads as follows: “This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to give effect to the memo dated 3-10-1968 issued by the R1 to the R2.” The petition comes to be disposed by the following order: “…. …. …. 4. In order to identify remaining 11 guntas of land which is said to have been belonging to the petitioners, the joint survey will have to be conducted in presence of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, the beneficiary under the acquisition – Respondent No.3 i.e., the authorities of the Dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya, Mysore; authorities of MUDA and the petitioners herein. Only thereafter the petitioners would come to know as to where the remaining 11 guntas of land would exist, if not acquired subsequently. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be met if the 5 th respondent gets the survey done in presence of all the aforementioned parties jointly. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 5 th respondent to get the joint survey conducted to identify the acquired portions in Sy.No.36/1 of Erangere Village, Mysore Taluk by the State Government as well as by MUDA in presence of the petitioners, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 and the authorities of MUDA. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 5 th respondent to get the joint survey conducted to identify the acquired portions in Sy.No.36/1 of Erangere Village, Mysore Taluk by the State Government as well as by MUDA in presence of the petitioners, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 and the authorities of MUDA. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with law as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order. All the parties shall cooperate for the joint survey.” The petitioners challenge the said order, before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1659 of 2012. The writ appeal comes to be dismissed on the following reasoning: “…. …. …. 4. It is not in dispute that challenging the legality and correctness of the acquisition of 1 acre 18 guntas of land of the appellants, the writ petition was filed in W.P.No.22290/1987 which petition came to be dismissed on 26-6-1988 and confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1302/1988 dated 3/10/1988. When the writ appeal has been dismissed this Court has held that the appellants cannot maintain one more writ petition inventing some new ground. It is not the case of the appellants that Annexure-C dated 3/10/1968 was not within the knowledge of the appellants. If the appellants intended to rely upon the memo dated 3/10/1968 they could have pressed the same in the earlier round of litigation. Having not done so, 43 years after issuance of the memo dated 3/10/1968 the petitioners/appellants cannot approach this Court to issue writ of mandamus. Moreover, the memo dated 3/10/1968 is an internal correspondence between the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and the Assistant Commissioner. Such internal correspondence cannot be questioned by the appellants and it is for the authorities. At this length of time, such a prayer cannot be considered. Accordingly, we cannot hold that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 5. So far as the other prayer is concerned, admittedly what is acquired is 1 acre 18 guntas of land with specific boundaries in the notification. At this length of time, such a prayer cannot be considered. Accordingly, we cannot hold that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 5. So far as the other prayer is concerned, admittedly what is acquired is 1 acre 18 guntas of land with specific boundaries in the notification. When specific boundaries are mentioned to the extent of land acquired, if any attempt is made by the respondents to tress pass it is always open for the appellants to file a suit for injunction against the respondents to protect their possession and for such a prayer writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the appellants. Viewed from any angle, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.” Joint survey is conducted as directed. The report of the survey is as follows: There is no challenge subsequently made by the members of the family. Then comes the new Act. Promulgation of new Act gives rise to the subject petition. Here again, all the grounds that have been lost have been reiterated. No Court in all the orders passed noticed hereinabove, has sought to interfere with the acquisition. The possession of the land acquired has already been handed over to the 5 th respondent; compensation for acquisition has been deposited in accordance with law long ago. 11. It needs to be noticed that the petitioners knowing full well of all the aforesaid orders, have suppressed every order passed by this Court earlier. The petition is preferred without divulging the orders passed, both of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, as also the order of the Apex Court affirming the said order and as though, it is in continuation of the petition preferred in the year 2007 and what has happened after 2007 is also not divulged. Therefore, the petition is preferred on suppression of material facts, which would take away the entertainment of the petition itself. However, everything is divulged in the statement of objections filed by the 5 th respondent. Therefore, the petition is preferred on suppression of material facts, which would take away the entertainment of the petition itself. However, everything is divulged in the statement of objections filed by the 5 th respondent. Having lost all legal battles way back in the year 1981 and the award passed and compensation paid way back in the year 1969, there is no warrant now to entertain the petition, that too at the hands of these petitioners who have come to the Court with unclean hands for determination of compensation under the 2013 Act. 12. The Writ Petition lacking in merit stands rejected Interim order of any kind if operating, shall stand dissolved. Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.