IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NOS.32076–32079 OF 2013 (LB-RES) Between:
1. Sri.M.C.Mandanna S/o late Chengappa Aged about 83 years Kolathadu Baigodu Hathur Post Ammathi Hobli Virajpet Taluk – 571 215.
2. H.V.Srinivasa S/o late Doddamane Annaiah Aged about 74 years Hathur Village Ponnapete Hobli Virajpet Taluk Madakeri District – 571 218.
3. Sri.D.A.Subramanya S/o late Doddamane Annaiah Aged about 67 years Hathur Village Ponnapete Hobli Virajpet Taluk Madakeri District – 571 218.
4. Sri.Gopalakrishna S/o late Doddamane Annaiah Aged about 59 years Hathur Village Ponnapete Hobli Virajpet Taluk Madakeri District – 571 218.
... Petitioners (By Sri.V.Srinivas, Advocate) And:
The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority Mysore – 570 024.
... Respondent (By Sri.V.Y.Kumar, Advocate) ***** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records in LAC No.100/94-95 on the file of the respondent and quash the endorsement dated 23.1.2012 passed by the respondent in LAC No.100/94- 95 vide Annexures-D1 to D4 to the WP.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners claiming to be the joint owners of land bearing Sy.No.128/1 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 28 guntas at Basavanhalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk had filed the present Writ Petitions challenging the endorsements at Annexures-D1 to D4 dated 23.01.2012 whereby the requests of the petitioners to grant site under the incentive scheme came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners had challenged the validity of the notification in W.P.No.16996/2005. The petitioners who are the joint owners of the land had challenged the validity of the notification relating to the acquisition of the land for the purpose of Vijayanagar 4th Stage under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 primarily on the ground that the scheme had lapsed in terms of Section 27 of the said Act. The said petition, however, came to be dismissed and observations were made permitting the petitioners to make an application for allotment of site and that the said requests would be considered in accordance with law.
2. Though the petitioners had made representations in terms of the observations made in W.P.No.16996/2005, the respondent, however, by the impugned endorsements had rejected the said requests.
3. Petitioners rely on the judgment passed by this Court in WP No.1113/2006. While this Court in similar circumstances has held that the challenge by the petitioners as regards the acquisition would not be a bar to consider allotment of sites under the incentive scheme and relying on the order passed in W.P. Nos.15618-650/1995 had allowed the petitions and had directed the respondent to consider the claim of land owners for allotment of site under the incentive scheme in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has urged several contentions, but however states that the order could be passed in terms of the order passed in WP No.1113/2006.
5. Accordingly, petitioners’ representations rejected by virtue of endorsements vide Annexures-D1 to D4 are set aside. The representations of the petitioners to be considered afresh in terms of their entitlement in the light of resolution dated 22.10.1990.
Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed of .
The respondent – Authority to consider the representations and dispose off the same expeditiously in the light of observations made in WP No.1113/2006 disposed of on 04.01.2012.
Prs* Sd/- JUDGE