IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.20142/2014 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
SRI D.V. RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE D.C. VARADARAJASETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.2749, 4TH MAIN, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE – 570 001.
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE – 570 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION IN NO.LAQ(2)CR.161/2005-
06 DATED 28.12.06 PASSED BY THE R-1 AND R-2 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON THURSDAY, JANUARY-4-2007 VIDE ANNX-A BY DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-2 AND R-3 IS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.17/2 MEASURING. 2 ACRES 9 GUNTAS SITUATED AT YANDAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.No.17/2, measuring 2 acres 9 guntas, situated at Yandahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk. He is aggrieved by issuance of Notification dated 28/12/2006 published in Karnataka Gazette on 04/01/2007 (Annexure-A). 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) in so far as his lands are concerned for the purpose of formation of Lal Bahaddur Shastri Layout.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3/Mysore Urban Development Authority and perused the material on record.
4. During the course of submission, it is noted that name of petitioner is indicated in the Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act and published as per Annexure-A Karnataka Gazette.
5. Learned Counsel for 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 the extent of lands. 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 28/12/2006. 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 Gopala Gowdanagar, II Stage Extension, Mysuru. Learned Counsel submits that this Court may declare that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land has stood lapsed on account of there being no further steps taken pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 28/12/2006. He further submits that the land sought to be acquired was for the purpose of formation of Lal Bahadur Shastri Layout, II Stage and this Court in Writ Petition No.50190/2014 disposed of on 26/03/2012, in respect of the very same Notification and in respect of lands situated at Yandahalli 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 petitioner’s land may be declared as having lapsed.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that indeed, in respect of the lands sought to be acquired pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 28/12/2006, issued under Section 17(1) of the Act 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 having lapsed and that appropriate orders may be made in these writ petitions also.
7. In the circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid precedent in respect of the very same layout, namely, 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 land 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 28/12/2006 (Annexure-B), no further steps or action being taken by the respondents/authorities, it is declared that the acquisition in so far as land belonging to petitioner is concerned, has lapsed.
Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*