IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No. 40579 OF 2018 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
SRI RAJANNA S/O KENGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KERGAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK. ...PETITIONER (By Smt.AYESHA, ADVOCATE FOR Smt.B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSURU-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
Sri T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) 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 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE- ‘B’ TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second Respondent Authority has issued a Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.1997 under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 proposing to acquire the schedule property belonging to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 Authority has filed a memo along with the copy of the Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.1997 as well as the Final Notification dated 29.03.2001.
4. It is ex-facie apparent that Sy.No.1/2 measuring to an extent of 3 acres 06 guntas situated at Kergahalli Village, Hayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District formed in Item No.1 of the Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.1997 is not found in the Final Notification dated 29.03.2001 and the same is acknowledged by the Respondent Authority. It would indicate that the proposed acquisition of the subject lands has been dropped.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge made to the Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.1997 by the petitioner does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE DH