IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos. 23471-23472/2018 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
1. SMT DR MEERA T AANTOO W/O SWAROOP AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.5, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, NETHAJI NAGARA, MYSORE-02 2. SMT. SAHANA K D/O CHANDAN.V.GUPTA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.4623,R MOHALLA MYSORE (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE) AND:
... PETITIONERS 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETERY DEPT OF HOUSING AND URBAN, M.S.BUIDLING, BENGALURU - 01 2. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE -570005.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE – 570005.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 10.7.1992 ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 17[1] OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED 16.7.1992 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AT SL NO.418 IS CONCERNED AS HAVING LAPSED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners who are the land losers are before this Court assailing the acquisition on the ground that the Scheme for which this acquisition was being done, itself has lapsed. After service of notice, the respondent-State has entered appearance through the learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli and the respondents 2 & 3 have entered appearance through their panel counsel Shri T.P.Vivekananda.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide judgments dated 11.09.2015 and 25.02.2016 in W.P.No.31475-
31479/2015 and W.P.No.54439-54443/2015 respectively have recorded a finding as to the lapse of Statutory Scheme for which the petitioners’ lands were sought to be acquired; he further submits that the award having not being passed till date, the acquisition proceedings cannot go on ad infinitum and therefore the same required to be invalidated as has been done in the aforesaid writ petitions.
3. The above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not admit any rebuttal from the side of the respondent-State and the respondent-MUDA. This apart, the aforesaid contention of the petitioners is substantiated by the above judgments in the cognate writ petitions as fairly not disputed by the other side. The fairness of the learned counsel for the opposing parties is placed on record.
4. The above apart, there is no reason to deny relief to the petitioners who are similarly circumstanced as the litigants in the said writ petitions.
5. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the acquisition notifications dated 10.07.1992 and 19.03.1996 at Annexures- A and B respectively to the extent they comprise the petition lands.
No costs.
Snb/ Sd/- JUDGE