IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos.31268-31269 OF 2018 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN:
1. SRI S N PARTHANATH S/O SRI NAGARAJA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.102, BLOCK-14, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020.
2. SRI.SANJAY SHYAMANUR P S/O S.N.PARTHANATH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.102, BLOCK-14, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020.
3. SRI.S.P.SANDEEP S/O S.N.PARTHANATH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.202, BLOCK-14, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020.
4. SRI.S.P.SUMANTH S/O S.N.PARTHANATH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.402, BLOCK-14, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK, YADAVGIRI, MYSORE-570 020. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001.
3. THE COMMISSISONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE-570 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE-570 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 10.07.1992 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 19.03.1996 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-F, IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of these writ petitions is substantially similar to the one in cognate W.P.No.30717/2015 c/w W.P.No.30718/2015 (LA-UDA) disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19/11/2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J to the writ petitions.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the learned Panel counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 together submit that prima-facie, the assertion of the petitioners appears to be true; however, they should be reserved liberty to ascertain the factuals. In these matters, no statement of objections has been filed presumably because the matters are already covered by the judgment in the cognate cases, which the petitioners have banked upon.
3. Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“4. Learned counsel for Mysore Urban Development Authority and the learned Government Advocate very fairly submit that this Court has declared the scheme for formation of III Stage Layout in Bogadi Village as lapsed. However, submits that an order declaring the scheme for acquisition to have lapsed cannot emanate at the hands of the subsequent purchasers in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in V.Chandrasekaran and another vs. Administrative Officer & others1, as petitioners did not secure any right, title and interest in the immovable property in question post acquisition notification.
5. If regard is had to the fact that the scheme for acquisition of large tracts of lands were proposed by issuing the notifications, both preliminary and final, for the formation of III Stage of Bogadi layout, in Bogadi village, and those are declared lapsed, in individual cases where kathedars presented petitions, no useful purpose would be served by once again declaring the lands in Bogadi village to be free of acquisition by holding the scheme as having lapsed.
6. Although petitioners cannot stake a claim or a right to such a declaration, nevertheless, this Court having declared as lapsed the scheme these petitions are accordingly disposed of. If the names of MUDA or Government are recorded in the RTC pahani in respect of the lands in question, the Prescribed Officer is directed to delete the same and incorporate the names of the petitioners.”
1 (2012) 12 SCC 133 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the scheme is declared to have lapsed and therefore, such a declaration would enure to the petitioners, who are similarly circumstanced. There is force in this submission.
5. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the acquisition notifications dated 10/07/1992 at Annexure–E and dated 19/03/1996 at Annexure-F; consequently, the entries in the property records need to be restored, as they were, before the issuance of the acquisition notifications.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ/KLV