IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.30072/2017 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN SMT. KANTHAMANI W/O LATE SHANTHAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DOORAVANINAGARA, 1ST STAGE, B KAATIHALLI, B KATTIHALLI ARASIKERE ROAD, HASSAN-5732 0O1. ... PETITIONER (By Sri SHARADAMBA A.R., ADV.) AND 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573 201. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1; Sri A.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD.5.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-B AND TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO EXTEND THE BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER BY GIVING 40% OF THE DEVELOPED LAND TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Husband of the petitioner was the owner of land measuring 6¾ gunta comprised in Sy.No.85/3 situated at Sankenahalli Village. He died on 09.07.2007. The land in question along with several other lands was acquired for formation of S.M.Krishna Layout by issuing preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 26.02.2002, followed by final notification issued under Section 19(1) of the Act on 03.12.2002.
2. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by others in W.P.No.394/2008 & connected cases. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 02.01.2013. Petitioner, however, did not challenge the acquisition. In the order dated 02.01.2013 passed, this Court while disposing of W.P.No.394/2008 upholding the acquisition, a direction was issued to Hassan Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to allot 40% of the developed land to the land owner who had lost the land, provided the land owners refunded the compensation amount received by them along with interest at 9.5% p.a. The HUDA was directed to issue demand notice to the land owners who had received compensation calling upon them to refund the same along with interest. The land owners were required to comply with the said demand within three months from the date of notice, in case they opted for allotment of site under incentive scheme. This benefit was extended even to those land owners who had not approached the Court.
3. Husband of petitioner was issued with such a notice.
Petitioner did not refund the compensation received by her along with interest within the stipulated period. But, she approached the HUDA on 16.09.2016 requesting the HUDA to receive the amount and allot a site as per the incentive scheme in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.394/2008. This request has been turned down by the HUDA by issuing Annexure-B endorsement dated 05.05.2017.
4. The reason for rejecting the request is that petitioner had failed to refund the amount of compensation received by her along with interest within the period stipulated by the Court. In this background, challenging the endorsement – Annexure-B, petitioner has approached this Court. A direction is sought against respondent No.2 – HUDA to extend the benefit of allotment of sites under incentive scheme by giving 40% of developed land to the petitioner in lieu of refund of compensation by her as per the order passed by this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find from materials on record that petitioner is a widow. She has lost her husband. The HUDA has now made her to lose her land for public purpose under compulsory acquisition. This Court taking note of the fate of land losers has issued a direction to HUDA to allot sites under incentive scheme. Petitioner was also one of the beneficiaries.
6. According to the assertions made in the petition, no notice was received by her from HUDA demanding refund of compensation amount along with interest. It appears notice was addressed to her husband. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner died on 09.07.2007 itself. Therefore, notice issued by the HUDA did not come to the knowledge of petitioner. This assertion of the petitioner deserves to be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, keeping in mind the ends of justice and the nature of the grievance made by the petitioner, I am of the view that endorsement issued rejecting the request made by the petitioner has to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement –Annexure-B is set aside. Petitioner is directed to move respondent No.2 – HUDA offering to refund the amount of compensation along with interest at 9.5% p.a. received by her. If the petitioner refunds the amount of compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the HUDA shall take steps to allot a site under incentive scheme as per the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.394/2008 & connected cases on 02.01.2013 and put the petitioner in possession of site by executing the Sale Deed in accordance with law within a further period of 30 days thereafter.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS