Karnataka High Court
Smt K M Chikkathayamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.38726-38729/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.38726-38729/2017 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.K.M.CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE D.RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2. SRI.R.KRISHNA
S/O LATE D.RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
3. SMT.R.HEMA
D/O LATE D.RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. SMT.PARIMALA
D/O LATE D.RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5. SRI.R.UMESHA
S/O LATE D.RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. SMT.T.RENUKA
W/O LATE D.PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
7. MRS.P.PREETHI
D/O LATE D.PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
8. MRS.P.KIRAN
S/O LATE D.PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WPs.38726-38729/2017
2
9. SRI.P.SANTOSH
S/O LATE D.PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
10. SRI.P.SUNIL
S/O LATE D.PAPANNA,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.2768, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-570 009.
11. SMT.SHIVAMMA
W/O LATE M.A.NARASARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
12. SMT.M.N.SHOBHA
W/O D.SAMPATH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
13. SRI.RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE M.A.NARASARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
14. SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O LATE M.A.NARASARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 TO 14 ARE R/AT NO.1130/9,
1ST CROSS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPURAM,
MYSORE-570 009. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri SANJEEV B.L., ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA)
JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570 009.
WPs.38726-38729/2017
3
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (MUDA)
JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE-570 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S., HCGP FOR R1;
Sri H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 TO
ISSUE THE SANCTIONED LAYOUT PLAN IN RESPECT OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONERS
IN THEIR APPLICATION BEARING NO.NIL, DATED 30.5.2017 AT
ANNEX-E AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ISSUE THE WORK ORDER, AND
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, 'MUDA') to issue sanctioned layout plan in respect of petition schedule properties as sought by the petitioners in their application dated 30.05.2017 - Annexure-E and to issue consequent work order.
2. Petitioners are owners of lands measuring 8.19 acres in Sy.No.185, 0.33 guntas in Sy.No.183/4, 1 acre in Sy.No.176/2, 3 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.168, 0.31 guntas in Sy.No.169/1 WPs.38726-38729/2017 4 and 2.32 acres in Sy.No.183/3, all situated at Dattagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk.
3. These lands were earlier notified for acquisition. Final notification issued was challenged by filing W.P.No.27994/2001. Said writ petition was allowed quashing the acquisition proceedings vide order dated 10.10.2013. Aggrieved by the same, MUDA filed W.A.Nos.6829 & 6830/2013. Thereafter, petitioners again filed another set of writ petitions seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings acquiring the lands in question had stood lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Said writ petitions were allowed. Thereafter, petitioners applied for conversion of schedule lands. W.A.Nos.6829-6830/2013 and W.A.No.899/2016 were dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment dated 20.10.2016 and 09.11.2016 respectively. Thus the acquisition proceedings regarding the lands in question were set at naught.
4. On 30.05.2017, petitioners filed application for sanction of layout plan. When the application was not considered, petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.33484- WPs.38726-38729/2017 5 33487/2017. The said writ petitions were allowed on 03.08.2017 directing respondent No.2 - Commissioner, MUDA to place the application submitted by petitioners along with all relevant materials before the Board in the meeting scheduled on 05.08.2017 for consideration in accordance with law and the MUDA was directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. Accordingly, Commissioner, MUDA placed the application for consideration on 05.08.2017 before the Board. The Board unanimously resolved vide order dated 05.08.2017 to sanction the layout plan. The Commissioner, MUDA, however, expressed his views that as he had sought for clarification from the Government, hence consideration of the application could be deferred. However, this was not acceded to by the Board and the Board resolved to sanction the plan. Thereafter, the Commissioner did not take steps to issue the sanctioned layout plan in terms of the resolution passed by the MUDA. This has made the petitioners file the present writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent No.2 - MUDA to issue the sanctioned layout plan in respect of petition schedule properties.
WPs.38726-38729/2017 6
5. By an interim order passed in these writ petitions, this Court directed the Commissioner, MUDA to be present before the Court. The Commissioner appeared before the Court and on the last date of hearing, it was submitted that as the new Commissioner had taken charge and as he had written a detailed letter on 06.10.2017 addressed to the State Government seeking necessary clarification in the matter, particularly in the background of filing of SLP before the Apex Court challenging the orders passed in the writ appeals, he was awaiting the communication from the Government and therefore, order passed by this Court could not be complied with.
6. Today, when the matter is taken up for further consideration, Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel for the MUDA, on instructions from Sri P.S.Nataraj, Assistant Director of Town Planning, MUDA and Sri Srinivas Urs, Personal Assistant to Commissioner, MUDA, submits that the Commissioner, MUDA has received a communication from the State Government dated 12.10.2017 informing him that necessary action as directed by this Court for issuance of sanction plan in terms of resolution passed by the MUDA could WPs.38726-38729/2017 7 be taken, subject to the result of the proceedings pending before the Apex Court. The said letter dated 12.10.2017 is placed for perusal of the Court. It is necessary to notice that Special Leave Petitions filed are highly belated.
7. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the MUDA submits that action will be taken by the Commissioner, MUDA for issuance of sanctioned plan in accordance with law as per the communication issued by the Government on 12.10.2017 and subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition filed.
8. In the light of the above submission of the counsel for the MUDA, nothing further survives for consideration. Placing the submission of the counsel for the MUDA on record, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Commissioner, MUDA to issue necessary sanctioned layout plan in accordance with law and take all other consequential actions as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS