Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.3215 OF 2020(LA-UDA)
BETWEEN
SRI PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE SEERE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.5, KASABA HOBLI,
HADAJANA POST,
ELLIGEHUNDI,
MYSORE-571311
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT KUSUMA M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR H G, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H K BASAVARAJ, AGA FOR R1
SRI G B SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
2
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD.12.12.2006 ISSUED BY
THE R-2 AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE W.P. IN SO
FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel Sri G.B.Sharath Gowda, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, Mysore Urban Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, State of Karnataka, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of 1 acre 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.50 of Bandipalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. The learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to series of judgments including the order passed in the case of Sri K.K.Krishnappa Vs. The State of Karnataka And Others in 3 W.P.No.54573/2017 which was disposed of on 04.01.2018 to submit that the very same preliminary notification dated 12.12.2006 which is under challenge in this writ petition has been considered by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of K.K.Krishnappa and having found that though preliminary notification was issued on 12.12.2006 for the formation of layout known as 'Shantaveri Gopalagowdanagara 2nd Stage', no declaration or final notification under Section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 has been issued so far. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration and having noticed that by order dated 03.12.2014, another co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.47098/2013 had allowed the writ petition and quashed the preliminary notification, the co- ordinate Bench proceeded to quash the preliminary notification on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed.
3. Learned Counsel Sri G.B.Sharath Gowda, appearing for the respondent-MUDA would submit 4 that the name of the petitioner is not found in the preliminary notification nor is the name of the petitioner's father Late Sri Seere Gowda, is found in the preliminary notification with respect to Sy.No.50. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the death of Sri Seere Gowda, the name of his wife Maramma has been entered in the revenue records. In the RTC at Annexure 'B', for the year 2018-2019, the name of Smt.Maramma is found with respect to Sy.No.50 to the extent of 21 guntas. In Column No.11 the encumbrance shows that the land to an extent of 1 acre 23 guntas has been notified for acquisition by the Mysore Urban Development Authority.
4. Having heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that even if this petition were to be allowed and a declaration is made that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, it will not be a declaration regarding the ownership of the property 5 with respect to the petitioner. However, with regard to the consistent decisions of this Court, the prayer made by the petitioner is required to be granted. Accordingly since the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of K.K.Krishnappa Vs. The State of Karnataka as mentioned above, the petition is allowed and the preliminary notification dated 12.12.2006 is hereby quashed, insofar as 1 Acre and 23 guntas in Sy.No.50 of Bandipalya Village is concerned.
5. Learned AGA and the learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 are permitted to file memo of appearance/vakalathnama within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-