IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.P.No.2117 OF 2017 [LA-UDA] Between:
Sri Manchaiah, S/o Late Manchaiah, Aged about 59 years, Residing at Bandipalaya, Kasaba Hobli, Ashrama Post, Mysore Taluk and District 570 029. … Petitioner (By: Sri B.N.Suresh Babu, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vidhanasoudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001, Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhanasoudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001.
3. The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Jansilakshmibai Road, Mysore 570 005.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Jansilakshmibai Road, Mysore 570 005. ... Respondents (By:Sri V.Krishna Reddy, HCGP for R1 & R2; Sri T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for R3 & R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Preliminary Notification so far it pertains to the lands of the petitioner dated 12.12.2006 issued by the R3 proposing to acquire the lands for formation of ‘Shanthaveri Gopalagowdanagara 2nd Stage’ vide Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition, coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Though the writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides it is heard finally.
2. Petitioner has assailed preliminary notification dated 12.12.2006 bearing No.LAQ(6)CR434/2005-06 (Annexure-A) issued by the third respondent insofar as the land bearing Sy.No.71/1 measuring 1 acre 06.08 guntas and Sy.No.73/1 measuring 6 acres 8 guntas situated at Hosahundi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, belonging to him for formation of ‘Shantaveri Gopalagowdanagara 2nd Stage’.
3. It is the contention of petitioner’s counsel that subsequent to issuance of the preliminary notification, till date, final notification has not yet been issued. He further submits that this Court in several matters has quashed the preliminary notification on account of non-issuance of declaration or final notification, resulting in abandoning the acquisition process.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to one such order dated 10.04.2015 passed in W.P. No.26550/2014 (LA-UDA) in respect of Swarna Jayanthi Nagar Layout and submit that similar relief may be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition also.
5. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 very fairly submits that this Court has granted relief to the land owner in the writ petition filed by them, assailing the preliminary notification, wherein declaration or final notification has not been issued and thereby the acquisition process not having been completed in time. He would submit that similar relief may be granted to the petitioner in this case also.
6. It is noted from the aforesaid submission that this Court had followed the order passed in previous cases and has granted relief to the petitioners in the said cases. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P. No.26550/2014 (LA-UDA) reads as under:
“7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusing the material on record as well as the order and judgment passed by this court referred to above, I am of the considered view that the ratio of those decisions would squarely apply insofar as the present scheme under consideration is concerned, namely “Swarna Jayanthi Nagar Layout”. It is noted that respondents intended to form that layout in the year 2006 and issued the preliminary notification on 4/1/2007. Eight years have lapsed since then, a declaration or final notification has not yet been issued. This court in several cases has held that, even though there is no time frame for issuance of a declaration and final notification in the aforesaid Act, it must be done within a reasonable time and that reasonable time has been stipulated as two years. In the instant case, eight years has lapsed. The declaration has not yet been issued. In my view, the aforesaid judgment would squarely apply. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“ 11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the said time limit also equally applies to acquisition proceeding? The Apex Court has held that in the absence of a specific provisions in these enactment, the provision contained in the Land Acquisition Act cannot be the read into the provision and such time limit cannot be prescribed, but at the same time it is held merely because no such time limit is prescribed, the Authorities cannot take their own time to complete the acquisition proceedings. If the law do not specify the time limit within which the official acts have to be completed, it is settled law that it has to be done, within a reasonable time. In that context, the Apex Court has held that even in the absence of a specific provisions a reasonable time for issuing final notification may be taken as two years. This Court following the aforesaid judgment in the case of SRI. H.N.SHIVANNA S/O LATE NANJAPPA & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER disposed of on 20th NOVEMBER 2012 has held that even in the absence of a specific provisions, a reasonable period for issuing final notification has to be two years, though not with exact mathematical preposition.
12. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, the preliminary notification is issued on 19.04.2007. Now nearly six years have lapsed. The Authorities want another 300 days time to complete the transaction, which is unreasonable. If there are any practical difficulties, it is open to them for issue one more preliminary notification and then issue a final notification within a reasonable time and acquire the land. Therefore, in the facts of this case, we are satisfied the delay of six years and further the request of 300 days in issuing final notification is unreasonable and therefore, the preliminary notification issued loses its value, it become non-est and the owner of the land should be at liberty to deal with the property in the manner he likes. Therefore, it is necessary to grant such declaration. However, it is made clear that still if acquiring authorities are interested in acquiring the land, this judgment would not come in the way of issuing a fresh preliminary notification and then issue a final notification within a reasonable time, in which event, the market value of the land to be acquired is to be paid on the date of fresh notification. It will give justice to the owner of the land.”
8. To the same effect is order dated 26/11/2014, passed in W.P. No.9640/2014 and connected matters by the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, in respect of “Shivarama Karanth layout”, sought to be formed by Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). Similar orders have been passed by this Court in respect of “Shantaveri Gopalagowda Layout”, sought to be formed by respondent – MUDA.
9. In the circumstances, preliminary notification dated 04/01/2007 issued under Section 17 of the Act is quashed insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned.
10. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
11. Parties to bear their respective costs.”
7. Similar order has been passed by this Court in respect of Shantaveri Gopalagowda Nagar II Stage in W.P.No.12917/2017 disposed of on 03.11.2017.
8. In view of the above, preliminary notification dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned is quashed.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
10. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-