IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35376/2019 (LA – UDA) BETWEEN :
SRI H.C.KRISHNA S/O CHOWDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHUNDI, S G S ASHRAMA POST, KASABA HOBLI, G S ASHRAM, MYSORE-570025 ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. KUSUMA M., ADV.) AND :
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2 . MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.07.1997 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE W.P. IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 15.7.1997 bearing No. LAQ CR(1) PR 38/97-98 issued by the 3rd respondent Authority at Annexure-A to the writ petition insofar as the schedule property bearing Sy.No.No.94/11 measuring an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas situated at Keragalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District mainly on the ground that no Final Notification has been issued till date.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mysore Urban Development Authority would submit that the Final Notification dated 29.3.2001 has been issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 19(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987, whereby the subject property though notified for acquisition under the Preliminary Notification dated 15.7.1997 does not figure in the Final Notification dated 29.03.2001 which would indicate that the said land has been excluded from the acquisition proceedings.
3. In view of the aforesaid, quashing of the Preliminary Notification does not arise. The grievance of the petitioner does not survive for consideration in view of the Final Notification dated 29.3.2001 being already issued whereby the petitioner’s land has been excluded from the acquisition.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: