IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.30 OF 2014 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
SRI C. M. RUDREGOWDA SON OF LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF CHIKKA KURUBARAHALLI, JYOTHINAGAR POST, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 102.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHWIN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 102.
4. THE CHIKKAMAGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-3;
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11786 OF 2010 DATED 11.12.2013 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.11846-48 of 2010 and connected writ petitions, dated 11.12.2013 in dismissing the petitions, the petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal.
2. No submissions are forthcoming from the petitioner’s counsel.
3. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent.
4. The plea of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his case on par with others, in the matter of de-notification of the schedule property and to direct the respondents to take a decision under Section-48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in terms of the resolution passed by the Chikmagalur Urban Development Authority (‘CUDA’ for short) and consequential reliefs.
5. The learned Single Judge at page–22 of the order held that, the relief as sought for cannot be granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11786 of 2010 for the same reasons assigned while considering W.P.No.11788 of 2010. The learned Single Judge further held that, the writ petition was not maintainable for the reasons recorded therein and came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners having been considered and rejected with reference to the material on record, there is no merit in the petition.
6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the grievance of the petitioners can be whittled down by restricting their case for issuance of a Notification under Section-48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the same having been rejected no relief could be granted. We find no ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ