IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.56133/2016 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN SRI BORAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.92, THIRD CROSS ANIKETHANA ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE-570023 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAXMIBAI ROAD MYSORE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER-570001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI V.KRISHNA REDDY, HCGP FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD.9.10.2006 PUBLISHED BY THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DTD.12.10.2006 VIDE ANNEX-A IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.87/2 MEASURING 2 ACRES 37 GUNTAS OF LINGABUDI VILLAGE TALUK AND DISTRICT AND MYSORE IS CONCERNED AND DECLARE THAT SAID LAND IS FREE FROM ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER Though this Writ Petition is listed for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group, with consent of learned Counsel on both sides, it is finally heard.
2. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner and in possession of lands bearing Sy. No.87/2 measuring 2 acre 37 guntas situated in Lingabudi Village, Mysore District. He is aggrieved by issuance of Notification dated 09.10.2006 (Annexure-A) and published in ‘Karnataka Gazette’ dated 12.10.2006. The said Notification has been issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity] insofar as his land is concerned.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.1-Mysore Urban Development Authority and perused the material on record.
4. During the course of submissions, it is noted that name of petitioner is indicated in Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act (Annexure-A) and published in the Karnataka Gazette on 12.10.2006.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that after issuance of the Preliminary Notification in the year 2006, no further steps have been taken by the Respondents/Authorities for conclusion of the acquisition proceedings and the very initiation of the acquisition proceedings is now in a limbo and the same puts a clog on the title of the petitioner in respect of his extent of land which has been notified. He further submits that the respondents have no intention to take further steps in the matter as, for nearly eleven years, nothing has been done pursuant to the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 09.10.2006. Therefore, relying on the decision of this Court in the case of ‘C.G. GANGADHAR v. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MYSORE [2013 [4] KLJ 559]’ and other orders passed by this Court with regard to Shantaveri Gopalagowdanagar, II Stage Extension, Mysuru, learned Counsel submits that this Court may declare that the acquisition of petitioner’s land has stood lapsed on account of there being no steps taken pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 09.10.2006. He further submits that the land sought to be acquired was for the purpose of formation of “Nalavadi Krishnarajawodeyar Nagara Badavane” and this Court in Writ Petition No.50190/2014 disposed of on 06.03.2015, in respect of the very same Notification and in respect of lands situated at Chikkahalli Village, wherein the land in question is also situated, has granted relief to the petitioners therein. In the circumstances, he submits that the acquisition in respect of the petitioner’s land may be declared as having lapsed.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that indeed, in respect of the land sought to be acquired pursuant to Notification dated 09.10.2006, under Preliminary Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act, steps have not been taken to their logical conclusion. No declaration or final Notification has been issued under Section 19[1] of the Act and they further submit that this Court in similar circumstances has declared the acquisition as having lapsed and that appropriate orders may be made in this writ petition also.
7. In the circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid precedent in respect of Lal Bahadur Shastri Layout, [W.P. No.50190/2014] as well as in other writ petitions referred to above, this Court has declared that the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners therein having lapsed on account of there being no declaration and Final Notification issued pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, in the instant case also, pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 09.10.2006 [Annexure-A], no further steps or action being taken by the Respondents/Authorities, it is declared that the acquisition insofar as land belonging to the petitioner is concerned, has lapsed.
Accordingly, the Preliminary Notification dated 09.10.2006 is quashed in so far as petitioner’s land is concerned. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
JT/-
Sd/- JUDGE