IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.18273 OF 2013(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Nanjundaswamy S/o Late. Nanjundaiah, Aged about 71 years, Residing at No.697, Narayana Sastry Road, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore. … Petitioner (By Sri. Y.Hariprasad, Advocate) AND:
1. Mysore Urban Development Authority(MUDA) Mysore, Represented by its Secretary.
2. S.C.Shivananda S/o Late. Nanjamma @ Nagamma, Residing at No.631, E & F Block, 2nd Stage, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore. ... Respondents (By Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for R1: Sri.B.S.Raghu Prasad, Advocate for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the resolution dated: 05.10.2012 Annexure-G passed by the 1st respondent Mysore City Development Authority, No.30/2012-13 resolving to grant the alternative site to the 2nd respondent and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the resolution dated 05.10.2012 at Annexure-G passed by the 1st respondent resolving to grant the alterative site to the 2nd respondent.
(b) Issue a direction to the 1st respondent to allot a alterative site 40’ x 60’ to the petitioner in lieu of acquitted site bearing No.1185 D-67 for the formation of the Devaraj Urs Road, Mysore.
(c) Allow the petition with costs.
(d) Grant any relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s uncle N.Ramaiah executed the settlement deed dated 23.01.1963.
Under the said deed Ramaiah had given a site bearing No.1185/D-67 to the petitioner. The said property was acquired by the MUDA in the year 1968 for the formation of Devaraj Urs road in Mysore. The Government, by order dated 24.04.1961 at Annexure-L directed the City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore to find out the following:
“(1) Alternative sites and provide at reasonable prices, giving priority.
(2) Attempts for putting up of multi-storied building for housing the displaced tenants in collaboration with the Municipality.
(3) In the disposal of shop sites to be newly formed the present shop cum house owners to be carefully given reasonable priority.
(4) Possibility of putting up of tenements on hire purchase basis, and (5) to allow reasonable time for shifting.”
3. Pursuant to that acquisition of the property the site bearing No.1185/D67 the compensation has been paid as per Annexure-H. The further case of the petitioner is that subsequently, the legal representatives of the N.Ramaiah has challenged the execution of the settlement deed dated 21.03.1963. The same has been finally settled in RSA No.1428/1972 produced as Annexures E (joint memo) and F (decree copy). The further case of the petitioner is that in respect of partition deed between the petitioner’s family and the second respondent’s family the final decree proceedings have been drawn in O.S.No.37/1962. In the final decree proceedings in respect of House site No.1185/D67 is concerned, it is held that Nanjundaswamy is the absolute owner and he is entitled for the compensation as well as other benefits. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has filed an application for allotment of site as per the Government Order at Annexure-L by representation at Annexure-C. Without considering the representations of the petitioner the respondent has taken a decision vide Annexure-J placing the name of the respondent No.2 for grant of sites in respect of 1185/D67. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the MUDA submitted that Annexure-G dated 06.02.2013 is not a resolution which is passed by the MUDA. This is the proposal put forward by the authority for consideration of competent authority. No such resolution has been passed. Since it is a premature petition, the writ petition is not maintainable. Secondly, he contended that the representation submitted by the second respondent is put in the agenda for consideration. So far no order has been passed in respect of the representation of the respondent No.2. In respect of the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-C is concerned, the same will be considered along with the application of all other parties, in accordance with law.
5. Sri B.S.Raghu Prasad, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that since the petitioner has already granted shops pursuant to the Government Order, the respondent No.2 also has a share in the property. Hence, he has filed an application for grant of a house site and he further contended that he has also filed an application for grant of site as per the Government Order at Annexure-L for acquisition of the house No.1183/D9. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. It is not in dispute that House No.1185/D67 has been acquired by the MUDA for the formation of Devaraj Urs road, Mysore. Pursuant to that compensation has been awarded. Now that the petitioner as well as the second respondent are making claim on the basis of the Government Order at Annexure-L seeking allotment of an alternative site in addition to the compensation awarded. The application filed by the respondent No.2 has been placed in the agenda for consideration before the competent authority. So far no action has been taken by the competent authority. Now that the application filed by the petitioner is concerned, it is of the year 1967. Under these circumstances, in the interest of the parties, the petitioner is permitted to submit additional representation along with all the documents relating to the House Property bearing No.1185/D67. The respondent – MUDA is directed to consider both the applications filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 in accordance with law and take a decision within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. After the decision is taken the first respondent shall communicate the same to the petitioner.
8. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-