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.20140/2014 & W.P.No.20265/2014 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
SRI I.N. NAGENDRA GUPTHA S/O. LATE N. NAGAMANIKYAM SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.103, 104, ”SUBRAMANYA KRUPA” MANASARA, 6TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, MYSORE – 570 010. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, RERPESENTED 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-2 & R-3) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRLY. NOTIFICATION DT.28.12.2006 PASSED BY THE R1 & R2 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE ON THURSDAY, JANUARY-4.2007 [1.4.07] VIDE ANN-A BY DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R2 & R3 IS LAPSED IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO AN AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING 12/5 MEASURING 34 GUNTAS & SY.NO.13/4 MEASURING 2 ACRES 5 GUNTAS SITUATED AT YANDAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TQ AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These Writ Petitions are listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of lands bearing Sy.No.12/5, measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.13/4, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas, situated at Yandahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk. He is aggrieved by issuance of Notification dated 28/12/2006 published in Karnataka Gazatte 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) insofar 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 Nos.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 lands 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 lands 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 lands in question are also situated, has granted relief to the petitioners therein. In the circumstances, he submits that the acquisition in respect of petitioner’s lands 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 lands 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 insofar as lands belonging to first and second petitioners are concerned, has lapsed.
Writ Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE S*