The Commissioner vs R Vasudeva Murthy on 7 June, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner vs R Vasudeva Murthy on 7 June, 2011

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Datad {his the '?"'* day caf June, 201 1 ' '
PRESENT

THE B€)N'BLE MR.J.$.;<:HE:H_AR, c§11E§_;3§é;sff:i%LEf4  ~

AND 1.  'V  .A 
THE: HQNBL}; MR.JU$'3j'ic§' H~,C;;-4RAM,;:$:<y   ' H
WA Nogog/201i*.{L;a_gRES}'=  ._ _ " 

Between :

1. The Commissioner,

Mysore Urban  
Developnlent Authofiiyf ;
Mysore. 

2. The Special Land  . _ ,  .
Acquisition?_"Of§§LQef».    'V   
Mysore  V   " V '
Dexreiopmerzé  «_  

Mys_0r@.. _ '~ : Appellants

(By Shfi. RS. 
And: V a ' ﬂ '

1. R; Vasudéva' 

 54 Years,"      

.. ., A _S';">. {gate Rgzzttehaiii Ramappas
' V. Resid.jr1g a1AN-0.2906,'Lakshmi?

'V  X91' Mohaliag
'.M3;s<::r€.'ﬂ'j_ 

'  2. S?;Ei§.;€V:'€3f Karnataka,
 AA R€pft3:§€I1§€d by its Sscretary.

'Urban Deveféopméni Departm€:1:,,

" Efikasa Soudha,

 B2mga1e:*€--§6é:é SQ}, : R€:ep:3::d§::!;i:§
{E3}; Siéfé. 31$. fagzzar Kzsmaz', f%£%v:i3C:21i=e ft};
Evl,/S>$ Léi§%z:§f€§'S 331:: for 3"€:'S§}G1""3C§E'§'§E' §%E<:>.i
Eéhri. E3, V€€€2}§}§)2E§ s":€sA £03" :r<3$p§§2é9:::§; 



2

This Writ Appeal is filed under see'Lion- 4 of the Kamaiaka
High Court Act praying to set aside ihe order dated O2_.09.20}CI,
passed in W.P.Ne.43448/2084 {LA~RES}. I 

This Writ: Appeal coming on for Preiiniiiiaim ibis
day', Chief Justice deiivered the f:::»iieWir:g' : ' *  'V' '

JUDGMia;«ij§:1j~--.¢  H

J.S.KHEI-IAR, C.J. (Oran  

A preliminary notificaiiVe'ri_"'vwgis ieSLa'e§:IV':0ri:V}i9.12.1991
seeking 2:0 acquire Hvof Dattagalii
viilage, Mys0re.__ The:e9,:fter,i."v_;ViVA&  to acquire
02 acres  was issueci on
10.12.199é;..    was acquired by the

Mysore  Authority (hereinafter referred

to as 't}ie._LMUDA')""iif13\iehVi"'tVeo1< possession of the acquired

langige'n,26ii)8...i_Q§)7. immediateiy thereafter: the MUDA

  on the acquired land and allotted the same

  

erder {if the goveriiment dated

2, By an

   1999, 0} acre 35 gmitae ef iameri out of acquired iand

    $2 aeree E2 guniaie wee ezéereei is be derietiféeci by {he

V' ﬁiaie {§e=:s'e?m::e::i,, ii: ex/:e§g::i§;e {if 3235:» §}{}"\?'~5§§" E/1I1§f'i" $eei;ie:':»

48 {if} ei'i:i1:: L€i,E3§ i3§{.Ti{§1,E;§fé3i§Ji{}i,1 ;%z_::*; i§;é§=fi~, in ether aazsirziei GE

e.s:i::*e 3% §_g§1.::ii§2?:ie {if igfigzié '§JE:1§§ :*<:%ia:%;e2,§;se/ii iE*<:>:":2 ;¢i(:q:,:i:~5ii',i{3ifi. '§'iie



" "3*
xﬁéfv

:3W§«t«1%ﬂt:3t/'%.«t»«>;&~w'Qtz ~3tw

Acquisition Act 1894 on 18.08.1999. Ihrthe

iettere addressed by the MUDA to the  -a:'e..__

eeneerned, ear attention  was ;  4'd1*a\%€:3__' t<;s~.._ 4;

eemmunieatiene dated 16._N.1§f3_9:Vahd 

response to the aforesaid  by the
MUDA, the State gQvernh7.--eht,_ "'thr0t.:'gt2'.._Aa'fetter dated
07.08.2000, the s:at'e--Vigoveyyiimed£it',';_:eq~:1:red the MUDA to
acquire equa1,_t'st1ita:bIe;'.--  [as against the
released land   and handover
the sarhe   vtilfiespite the aforesaid letter
datedijv   eeuneei contends that the
MUDA"'eVtrt1ek'  and again informed the State

goverhmetit through. a"':communi<:ation dated 19.09.2000,

 %,.theg ge\tei'h1°hent Could not have passed the

  "Qrder dated 18.08a1999. The response of

 rehutted by the State government through

 twe letters dated 21.10.2000 and 2538.200}, wherein the

A 'eh'  geverhment required the EVEUDA to ebey the direetiene

teeued te it hf; the St.ate gevesnment en Q'?.O8.2GQC}. Yet

aggaing the §\!}§UDz§§ th:"<:t1§g'h a eertzmtztzittatien dated

§§.€}E§{2Q*C%§% 3'é'tq";§§:f'€§ the ﬁtate gevereeteitit the revoke the
ge:te:":1;:ee:1t/ etdett' dated iE%.®é§>iE999.} in add;it;tez2 thereteu it

wee seated, that tetty ti the afeteeaéd eeder '£Jx?§:':S.§ atttmlied hf;



 

5
the Staié gr::w'er:nm€nt, the MUSE': would be in a psaitiorx to

camgsly with the government erder by pI"G§é"i£Ziif§g  equai,

suiiable, alternative iand E0 the Zane? G'§¥I1€I'.  _the

State gasvernmeni reiterates} his pcsitio;f1__  ti..§:p'i%;}_*ieé§ in-  

letter dated 07.08.2000, 35y '_ 're;3'p_er3';:ii;:;_.1:g. ._;*i§__ ths§.___ 

cemmumicatien cf the M{jI3Aq'~..{ ﬁaied 
requiring the MUDA to  the   of 81%
government. At    S*':é'£ﬁ€ V gczvernment
reiterated the  its letter dated
15.10.2001;    

4. ~~~~    ongoing cammunications

eXcharige&4'_bet§i?ééﬁ%  government and the MUDA,

writ petiti{3:é. %n'o.Vi /'£73601 was filed by an individual who

  a1Eot{éc}v-----eusite by the MUDA over the acquired

  _  'petition n:3.19988/2&0}? the petitioner had

iﬁf1;;_{ig11¢z:I' cienatificatien order ﬁaied 18,G8,199Q issuad

 ._by the gtaxfsrnment. The aferesaid chailengs raiseé 5}?' the

V'{;:«:%:';1§;£'i'g*}2":s3:' in vvri: petiV{i::}:1 :10. 29988 / 2061 was accspied Q3}

V.  1__§}§.G§.2G§4: by ihizg cguri, :*eS:,:§3':3.nii};, ihe d€~nG"i§fisai:i8:1

 Ofdﬁi' éaiﬁé E8*88.3§Q§ iS$i.i€{i by 31% Stats gevernzzasai

iifiéﬁi" s€£'ii£:::::~«5é8 {E} {if 31:: Laﬁé éﬁguigiiiea ﬁe: ESQK; same

':6 E38 36?; aﬁiﬁa 5*; this £::£3V%¢3»I"§.:% 'E'h§3 Sazzyi passeai $326



Um

  33% E 
Q %

»mmmm»....,

{£53

 noﬁji.

6
aforesaid order on the premise that the State government
had no power and authority to reiease the aeqi1iife'd_ Land,
possession whereof had. :5ii:*eaeiy been 

upon the initiation of acquisition proeeedingsh.  i

5. It is not a matter of   
with the ciireeiion issuedv'b%:"':he  the
MUDA, handed overan'a1terna.ei€{eVV--'p}.ot rneeisuiing" 01 acre
85 guntas of land to  At this
juncture, it  that respondent

no.1 had coinihpiensation at the hands of the acquisition of 02 acres 12 of respondent noil became the owner "of V acre." 35 guntas as far back as on 15999"; ..ASinee"iEhe said iand was granted to respondent upon the order of denotifieaiion dated end since this Court whiie allowing writ Z"".'_hpe§iiion-..:io,19988/2&0}, had set aside the order of tie» }::i.oii»,f}e'e.fi0n dated }.8.08.i999, the MUSE': issued a show ficiiee to {he petitioner"/yespondenii no}, informing Ehsi he shouid rewcieiiver the iand siiniieii to him, in hem of the iané szhieh was zéziffegziireei 333* {he EVEUVEBA Respiineieni, no. i, :'espo:i:{ie{§ 35;: éhe f*3§'i€[)';ii :::i2s.:se niiééiee w.Mm.W,m mmwmm.

kw} k;:"'ax""§/"\:><<3%;€ » E dated 04.08.2904 wﬁh his reply dat€d_..__§3§:.'<§'*§5.2'f}O4l Finding no merit in the reply filed by 'me thca MUDA, Vidfi its order dailegl land allattecl E0 th€ f€SpOH€lf3f1{ liexl {lie land.

6. The ::§;§1l};':1.ﬂ,2§\.o9.2o04 passed by the MUD1§;.v.§ame""'i;;élt the hands of respondenrf I10 . 43448 / 2004. A learne§:1_. allowéd the aforesaid Writ The learned Single Judge, while allékflrlg writ petition, arrived at the conlzflulsic-n, v.)Cl"l;£ii__ _____ ﬁlle alternative allotment of land ___acr€s 35 guntas in Survey 110.80/1 would ve.s.3:'j--»in l;h&éj:'éEslp0ndent 110,1, and that respondént 110.} was alreafiyxin possession of the same.

The selitary jlSSL1€ canvassed at the hands czf _,gg;9.rr1€Cl ifeunsel for the appellant befcsre use is based on the llaci §h§§ the land in quegtien was trar:$fe:*ré:d to the rsgpsrzdezﬁ n::>.l, 9:1 3.<:c::<>umi Sf §§é:--:2{}ilifi::?:e:ili{::*: £}¥'€l€E" Clafiezi gaggsgé éhe E§:::3;£':é g;"(;v<>r:2me1:§ ﬁated l8;.i§%;31.l999g !E(}iiffg§éE1§;§ l;l*:é>: l.:z:§i% gaéarlééér 2=z<f:q::,§:*e:3«:§ $5? thee l'v'llijE}£al, zmci Slﬁiffj 'ills g/;€}¥'f?l§'iEil'}{%§E%5 {;>:":é€<r iléiiﬁé l9*§%§ hziifi l,}fj%§'?}'i Sfﬁé', E;:%.&?}%i:%§7fw ~i7:x,m«w%;?V "«.a;3pé'Hant :0 raise any 0? if/hrs instant §.SSL§€fS. 8 the respondent no.1 was not entitied to have the benefit of aitemative land. It is sought to be f€p€at€d1}fVf¢'ﬁ--€F3t€d, that the MUDA cnnfinued to pron:-st "d_e~ netification order dated 18.08.1999, Cczmrnunination after anotheér 1:0 kihefiv informing it, that the: order.»:ia§€d I8:'G8.V1 State gnvernrneni: for re1ea%§:"'«..V'n'f guntas of acquired hand was the provisions contained under: Sectiengés Acquisition Act 1894. v"1'eVé:ifn€d Counsel for the appellanfg mast, respondent no.1 \A:ouId7Y}3e__§~nﬁiV£}.5€1_ﬁ't0»"nnnapensation of land measuring 01 acres he acquired Qwriership on

30.Q§"":399.kV ' % i ~haV€ g;iv€n our thoughtful cnnsidsration {"0 the "'snbrnisj_§i€3n3 advaxlced by iearned counsel for the 'v.__app€:Hanf;. In @111" viéw, it dares nos: H6 in the mouth nf ihs If inf:

a§p€ii21nii being very much aware: {if '£16 fan'; Eihai the {E6- §}€}{,i§{?§:i§,§{3§§ nriier daésd 1S§{}§i%. 399%} was nan; in»<:e3n:--3nn2:n{':€ vain} ins §:*<}%5i$i::>:':ass sf »S6<:':,ni{:2:i--£%§€ {E} in' ':;h§=: L2:;_n(:% A{:qn§sii,§<:n Aiifi if ':?»ft;i:*Li§{:i fn<>f §'i§§3'\/'f;','* nz{::"a>E_:g a:i{i:"é3::e,::e£t{% 23% ».mWmW.w..

I 0 appeilant to transfer equal, suitabie, a1ternati\«'e»"'Eand, in terms of the direction of the State the respondent no.1. Now, that equai, st;.i_t.:f_14h'ev.ie',--._t..e;It_e;'enat.iye'__ land has been transferred in the name; er? feAsp_e:1.:1eAnt,A,:1e.1}... [ the question is whether the MUDt%_, 'Can the It may have been '}'ustifiaI3'1'v'e"'v.V.:.t0 '$€.€t'{'-Ft§:[t',t:1'I1..:V:§{)fVV the land allotted to the .::'o:11}? had paid compensation to of {)1 acre 35 guntas of IargCi;"'3e}1Vieh--_ During the course of hearing: th§eVV'e.ppe1Iant acknowledges? that vland owned by respondent no.1, sites and aﬂotted them to the genera! '~.It therefore, not a matter' of dispute, thet:'a_:$pei1antvVhss already put to use 01 acre 35 guntas A--.ef.ie,ri<levewhetithey respondent 110.1, despite nen~payment of eompehzsatien to respondent no.1? in lieu the-reef. What beett given by the MUDA te respondent new is enijg " , suitable, stternetive Eanej, that, in ear viewt would

-~{:OI1Sti'tt).'t€ e.§equat:e eempensatiett payabie to resperléetzzt 3&1 fer ettqtxiring E eer~:': 35 gtmtzts sf his izsmd. Hé}."ir'iii§ errived at efe:°es21i{i {?€)?'i{fi1t1:t',%i{}:"1, we are setiistéeeét that §€':éT1,f'§§{';%éi,§ Si:/agée tJVE,.1€i§.::€3 ftgttigz §t1s§;it'iet'§ iii »»:V I1 accepting the prayer made by respondent no.1? so as te Set aside the order dated 25.09.2004 passed by the For the reasens recorded hereinabeaiée, vx2g,%e'e-"f;E:?{Q'*e hes /'$ merit in the instant writ fW'f7'1_ti{?h i:i'§" aee.:srd'ing;1'y dismissed.

\/'R

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court