IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA Writ Petition Nos.43172/2017 and 44997-45000/2017(LA-UDA) Between:
Chetan Kumar Aged about 46 years, S/o late Lakshman Das, No.893, 1st block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore – 570 022.
(By Sri.V.V.Gunjal, Advocate) And:
…Petitioner 1. The Commissioner, The Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore – 570 008.
2. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary Urban Development Department, Vishweshwaraiah Towers, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
...Respondents (By Sri.Vijayakumar.A.Patil, AGA for R-2) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-B issued by R-1 notification under Section 17(1) of the Urban Development Authorities Act claiming that the petitioners lands are required to develop the Ballahalli Extension at Annexure-B dated 28.6.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of statutory provision of Karnataka Act 34 of 1987 and the said Act has been impliedly overruled by virtue of Central Act 30/2013 and issued by R-1 dated 29.12.2016 at Annexure-D as in violation of Principal of Natural Justice.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has assailed preliminary notification dated 28.06.2016 issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as ‘Act’ for brevity) 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a declaration and final notification under Section 19 of the Act has not yet been issued. In the absence of there being any declaration and issuance of a final notification under Section 19 of the Act, the acquisition process is still incomplete and has not crystallized in the form of a declaration. The acquisition proceedings being inchoate, the filing of this writ petition assailing the preliminary notification only is pre-mature.
Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable at this stage. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail the acquisition in case, he has reasons to do so after issuance of declaration and final notification under Section 19 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-