Next > 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 Nos.32492-32493/2017 c/w W.P.No.37431/2017 (LA-UDA) IN W.P.Nos.32492-32493/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. T.N. AHALYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. K. RAMESH, R/AT NO.175, 6TH CROSS, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 001.
2. SRI K. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNE GOWDA, R/AT NO.175, 6TH CROSS, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER .
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ZONE-2 MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE – 570 001.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICE DTD.01.07.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A AND QUASH THE NOTICE DTD.1.7.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC., IN W.P.NO.37431/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI S. JAYAPRAKASH S/O. LATE SHVIANNA @ BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.18/1, KALIDASA ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE.
PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO.67, I MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE – 570 012.
PERMANENT R/O DOOR NO.2577, KALIDASA ROAD, ONTIKOPPAL, MYSORE – 570 002. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SUBBA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD:10.07.1992 ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 17[1] OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA OFFICIAL GAZETTE DTD:16.07.1992 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AT SERIAL NO.445 IS CONCERNED AS HAVING LAPSED AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though these matters are listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. Petitioners in W.P Nos.32492-93/2017 are stated to be the site owners formed in land bearing Sy.No.57 whereas, petitioner in W.P.No.37431/17 is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.57 measuring 4 acres 17 Guntas, situated at Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. Petitioners have assailed Preliminary Notification dated 10/07/1992, issued by second respondent, under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”, for the sake of brevity), published in the Official Gazette on 10/07/1992 (Annexure-B) and Final Notification dated 19/03/1996, issued by the first respondent and published in the Karnataka Official Gazette on 25/07/1996 (Annexure-C). They have also sought a declaration that acquisition proceedings of respondent No.2 pertains to Bogadi village, 3rd Stage Extension Layout, has lapsed on account of there being no further action taken pursuant to the final notification referred to above.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit at the Bar that similar writ petitions have been allowed and it has been declared that the scheme of acquisition of land in respect of the land in question has been declared as lapsed. Reference is made to the order passed by this Court in M.S. Sheshadri vs. State of Karnataka, W.P.Nos.51253-254/2015, disposed of on 03/12/2015. They further submit that a similar order may be made in the instant case and writ petitions may be allowed.
4. In the aforesaid order, this Court has noted that subsequent to the final notification, no award has been made, compensation has not been paid, possession has not been taken, scheme has not been implemented and that the respondent – MUDA, has virtually abandoned the scheme. In the circumstances, in the aforesaid order, this Court has held that the scheme stands lapsed insofar as petitioners’ land therein is concerned. Consequently, the aforesaid writ petitions have been allowed by declaring that the scheme for acquisition of land in question therein has lapsed. Since the land in question is also situated in the very same village and it is the subject matter of the very same notifications, a similar order is passed in these writ petitions also.
5. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that the scheme for acquisition of the land in question has lapsed.
Next >