Karnataka High Court
Sri.Siddaramu vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.3266 OF 2020 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN
1. SRI.SIDDARAMU
S/O CHIKKABOVI
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. SRI KANNAYYA
S/O CHIKKABOVI
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. SRI. RAJU
S/O CHIKKABOVI
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SRI SRINIVASA C
S/O CHIKKABOVI
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5. SMT.GOWRAMMA
S/O CHIKKABOVI
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT KERAGALLI
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK
MYSORE 560 026
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT KUSUMA M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR H G, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
-2-
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 SMT KAVITHA H C, HCGP 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 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.7.1997
ISSUED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE
WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel Sri. G. B. Sharath Gowada, is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997 at -3- Annexure-A and to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997 has lapsed by virtue of coming into force the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 insofar as schedule property is concerned.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent- MUDA, this Court finds that the petitioners seem to be aggrieved by the fact that an entry has been made in Col.No.11 of the RTC at Annexure-B with respect to the petition schedule property. At Col.No.11, it is shown that the land is notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997. Admittedly, the petition schedule property does not find place in the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, a final notification has been issued on 29.03.2001, there too, the petition schedule property does not find place. However, since an entry -4- has been made in Col.No.11 in the RTC, the petitioner approached the Revenue Authorities to remove the entry at Col.No.11.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revenue Authorities have directed the petitioners to get an endorsement from the respondent-MUDA that the land in question has not been notified. When the petitioners approached the respondent-MUDA seeking such an endorsement, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Information Officer, under the Right to Information Act, has issued an endorsement dated 06.12.2019 at Annexure-C calling upon the petitioners to tender a sum of Rs.50/- for providing a copy of the preliminary notification dated 15.07.1997. The learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA submits that the information sought by the petitioners is to furnish a copy of the preliminary notification and not a request to issue an endorsement that the property has not been acquired by the authority. -5-
5. In the light of the above, this Court finds that the petition is misconceived. If the petitioners were to approach the respondent-MUDA seeking an endorsement that the petition schedule property has not been acquired, the authority is required to issue such an endorsement. Even otherwise, the Revenue Authorities shall take note of this order and act upon the submission/representation made by the petitioners seeking removal of the unauthorized entry at Col.No.11 of the RTC, pertaining to petition schedule property.
6. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents are permitted to file Vakalath/Memo of Appearance as the case may be, within a period of two weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE DL