Karnataka High Court
Shivamma vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 21 August, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.16667-16673/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.16667-16673/2015 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN
1. SHIVAMMA
D/O LATE NANNAPPA,
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
# 3,TAMMADDA GERI BEEDI,
HINKAL POST, MYSORE-17.
2. N.MARAIAH S/O LATE NANNAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED, BY LRs.
(a) GOWRAMMA W/O LATE MARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
(b) RAJESHWARI W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR M.
D/O LATE MARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
(c) VIJAY KUMAR S. S/O LATE SHIVAKUMARA M.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
(d) VINAY KUMAR S. S/O LATE SHIVAKUMARA M.
AGED ABPIT 20 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.2501,
GANAPATHY TEMPLE ROAD,
THAMMADAGERI BEEDHI, HINKAL,
MYSURU-570 017.
(e) SHOBHA W/O MAHALINGAIAH
D/O LATE MARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.233, MYDI AGRAHARA,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560 057.
(AMENDED V/C/O DT.25.7.2017)
WPs.16667-16673/2015
2
3. SHIVANNA S/O LATE NANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
# 199,TAMMADDAGERI,
HINKAL POST, MYSORE-17.
4. NAGANNA S/O LATE NANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
# 7/1,TAMMADDAGERI
HINKAL POST, MYSORE-17.
5. NANJUNDA SWAMY S/O LATE NANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
# 180, EWS, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
MAAHE GOWDA CIRCLE,
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSORE-16.
6. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE NANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
#49,TAMMADDAGERI
HINKAL POST, MYSORE-17.
7. ANAND S/O LATE NANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
# 49/1, TAMMADDAGERI
HINKAL POST, MYSORE-17. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.K.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR Sri K.R.LINGARAJU, ADV.)
AND
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
J.L.B. ROAD,
MYSORE-570 001. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri I.G.GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 5.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
VIDE ANN-A; AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT THE
INCENTIVE SITES TO EACH PETITIONERS IN PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION DATED 22.10.1990 VIDE ANN-G AND IN TERMS OF
WPs.16667-16673/2015
3
ORDER IN W.P. NO. 49502/2013 [LA-UDA] AND CONNECTED
MATTERS DATED 2.8.2014 VIDE ANN-X AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the endorsement dated 05.09.2014 issued by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, 'the MUDA') vide Annexure-A. By the said endorsement, request made by the petitioners for grant of sites under incentive scheme as per the resolution passed by the MUDA in consideration of acquisition of their land for the benefit of MUDA has been rejected stating that there was no provision for allotment of site under incentive scheme.
2. Facts involved in the case briefly stated are that 4 acres 31 guntas of land situated at Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru belonging to the father of the petitioners late Nannappa has been acquired for formation of Vijayanagar III Phase. Preliminary notification in this regard was issued on 31.03.1984. Along with land in question, several other lands were acquired. Petitioners have applied for grant of sites under WPs.16667-16673/2015 4 incentive scheme contending that as per the resolution dated 22.10.1990 - Annexure-G passed by the MUDA, provision has been made for grant of sites under incentive scheme in favour of land losers in terms of slab fixed therein for acquisition of different extent of land. According to the petitioners, they have been making repeated representations to the MUDA seeking grant of sites under incentive scheme. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in a batch of writ petitions filed in the year 2013 by several similarly placed land losers, this Court in W.P.No.49502/2013 and connected cases disposed of on 02.08.2014, direction has been issued against MUDA for allotment of sites under the incentive scheme. A copy of this order is produced at Annexure-X to the writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that as the petitioners are similarly placed, a direction may be issued to the MUDA to grant similar benefit to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has also relied upon another order in W.P.No.57919/2013 dated 03.06.2014 to contend that this Court has considered the contentions urged by MUDA that delayed representation cannot be considered and has repelled the said contention.
WPs.16667-16673/2015 5
4. Learned counsel for the respondent - MUDA Sri Gachchinmath submit that acquisition is of the year 1984 and the scheme was floated in the year 1990, but the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2015. Therefore, there is enormous delay in approaching this Court and hence, petitioners are not entitled for similar order based on earlier directions issued by this Court.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the question of delay has been considered while issuing direction by this Court in the two orders referred to herein above.
6. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that MUDA has to consider the matter afresh keeping in mind the orders passed by this Court in similar matters. Impugned endorsement at Annexure-A does not assign any reasons. Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
7. Hence, Writ Petitions are allowed. Impugned endorsement - Annexure-A is set aside. A direction is issued to the MUDA to consider the representations made by the petitioners afresh keeping in mind the directions issued earlier WPs.16667-16673/2015 6 by this Court in W.P.No.49502/2013 & connected cases disposed of on 02.08.2014 and as also in W.P.No.57919/2013 disposed of on 03.06.2014 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS