IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.46343 & 64588 – 64592 & 64593 – 64594/2016 (LA – UDA) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.GANGAMMA S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. MEENAKSHI D/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. SUSHEELA D/O LATE MAYIGOWDA (SINCE DIED, DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15.04.2019.) 5. SATTIGEGOWDA S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. VEENA S/O SATTIGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 7. SURESHA S/O SATTIGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 8. NATARAJA S/O SATTIGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL R/AT 1839, HOSABEEDI, HINKAL VILLAGE, KASABA VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 001 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 23.12.1991 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 10.12.1992 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS HAVE LAPSED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 23.12.1991 as well as the Final Notification dated 10.12.1992 produced at Annexures – B and C to the writ petitions.
2. The learned counsel Sri. K.R. Lingaraju appearing for the petitioners submits that the challenge insofar as the acquisition notification shall be given up by the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents having passed the resolution dated 22.10.1990 to allot the sites on incentive basis to the land losers like the petitioners, there is an obligation on the part of MUDA to allot site/s in favour of the petitioners in terms of the said resolution. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.1113/2006 (D.D. 04.01.2012) and other similar orders of this Court.
3. Learned counsel Sri Sharath Gowda G.B. appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the fact that the resolution was passed by the MUDA to allot the site/s to the land losers subject to compliance of the conditions stipulated therein. However, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have approached this Court with inordinate delay and considering the same, the petitioners are not entitled to claim allotment of site/s on incentive basis.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be discriminated in the matter of allotment of site/s. The petitioners are similarly placed like the petitioners in W.P.No.1113/2006 and other matters. Though the acquisition Notifications were challenged in the said writ petitions, considering the resolution passed by the MUDA dated 22.10.1990 this Court directed the MUDA to allot the sites on incentive basis to the petitioners therein. Hence, the petitioners herein are entitled to the similar reliefs.
5. Hence, in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.1113/2006 referred to supra, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of site/s on incentive basis in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990 and on par with the consideration and benefit extended to the similarly placed petitioners in W.P.Nos.15618-650/1995.
Time for compliance is three months.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR