IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.45961/2016 (LA-KHB) BETWEEN R VENKATARAMANASWAMY S/O LATE M RANGAPPA 60 YEARS R/AT No.1726, 6TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT G.K.V.K POST BANGALORE-65 (By Sri T A RAMAKRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-1 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD KAVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-1 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD KAVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-1.
…PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (By Sri VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R.1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-B THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 6.4.1989 GAZETTED ON 18.01.1990 AND ANNEXURE-C THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 23.05.1991 GAZETTED ON 11.04.1991 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 IN RESPECT OF SY.No.53, MEASURING 1 ACRE 13 GUNTAS IS CONCERNED AND DECLARE THAT THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID LAND IS ILLEGAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has assailed Preliminary Notification dated 06.04.1989, gazetted on 18.01.1990, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of acquiring inter alia petitioner’s land for a housing scheme, as well as Final Notification and declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the said Act on 23.05.1991 and gazetted on 11.04.1991. It is averred by the petitioner that Sy.No.53, measuring 1 acre 13 guntas of land situated at Allalasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, belongs to him and the said extent of land was sought to be acquired under the aforesaid notifications.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was one of the persons who had earlier assailed the aforesaid notifications before this Court and he had succeeded in his writ petition, which was disposed of along with other writ petitions by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petitions, the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board and other respondents had preferred W.A.No.3469/2012 and other writ appeals assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 26.11.2015 dismissed the writ appeals. In the interregnum, the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board had filed SLP (C) No.28602/2015 arising from WA No.3464/2012 disposed of on 12.06.2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petitioner’s counsel submits that the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner also succeeded in the writ appeal. However, the grievance of the petitioner is, despite being successful in getting the notifications quashed insofar as his land is concerned, no further steps have been taken by the respondent-authorities. In the circumstances, the petitioner has again assailed the aforesaid notifications in this writ petition.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 on advance notice submits that the petitioner cannot again assail the notifications by filing a second writ petition as he had been successful in the earlier litigation and that the scheme itself has been given up and, therefore, the petitioner having been successful in the earlier round of litigation has frivolously filed this writ petition.
4. I find from the material on record, particularly on perusal of Annexure-D, which is a copy of the judgment dated 26.11.2015, that in W.A.No.3466/2012 filed by the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board, the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.2 and by the said judgment, the appeal filed by the Karnataka Housing Board has been dismissed thereby confirming the order of learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition notifications insofar as the petitioner is concerned. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has filed a frivolous writ petition onceagain assailing the very same notifications.
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv