Karnataka High Court
Smt Nanjammanni 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.3432 OF 2020 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN
1. SMT NANJAMMANNI
W/O LATE SHAMBHANNA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE SHAMBHANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE SHAMBHANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
#342, LALITHADRIPURA,
MYSURU-570028.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
J.L.B ROAD, MYSURU-570007.
3. THE SECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
MYSURU-570007.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
(BY SRI H K BASAVARAJ, AGA FOR R1
SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 13.12.2006,
ISSUED BY THE R-2, VIDE ANNX-A, PUBLISHED U/S 17(1)
OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ACT, 1987 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER LAND BEARING
SY.NO.6/6 MEASURING 0.10.00.00 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT (SL.NO.9 IN PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION)
AND GRANT SAME RELIEF AS IT IS ALREADY PASSED IN
SIMILAR W.P.NO.56078/2016 (LA-UDA) DATED 03.11.2016
AND W.P. NO.29288-29289/2019 (LA-UDA) DATED
12.07.2018 VIDE ANNX-E AND E1 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.
Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for respondents No.2 and 3.
In this petition the petitioners seek quashing of preliminary notification dated 13.12.2006 issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-A, which was published under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. -3-
2. The notification of acquisition was issued for the formation of layout known as "Lalithadri Nagar, 2nd Stage". The land belonging to the petitioners bearing survey No.6/6 measuring 0.10.00.00 guntas, situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District, was notified for acquisition.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the preliminary notification having been issued in the year 2006, the respondents have not taken any steps to complete the acquisition proceedings.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to two decisions of Co-ordinate benches of this Court in the case of Sri. Yethappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in WP No.56078/2016 which was decided on 03.11.2016 and Smt. Mahadevamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P. Nos.29288- 29289/2019 which were disposed on 12.07.2019 wherein the very same notification dated 13.12.2006 -4- was quashed in so far as the land belonging to the petitioner therein.
5. The Co-ordinate benches have held that the claim for formation of the layout had lapsed. Consequently the preliminary notification was quashed. However the learned counsel very fairly bring to the notice in this Court, another decisions of a Co-ordinate bench in the case of Fr. Eldho John and others v/s Mysore Urban Development Authority and others in WP Nos.47459-461/2018 which was decided on 26.06.2019. In the said decision the Co-ordinate bench was called up on to consider two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chand and others v/s Union of India reported in (1994) I SCC 44 and C.G. Gangadhar and Bengaluru Development Authority and another v/s The State of Karnataka and another in Civil appeal Nos.7661-63/2018 which was decided on 03.08.2018.
6. The Co-ordinate bench, having considered both the decisions observed that on perusal of the -5- decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para-19 in the case of Bengaluru Development Authority (supra), it was evident that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions had held that in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph-19 of the aforesaid decision, it was not open to the High Court to quash the preliminary notification issued under Section 17 of the Act as land owners, the State Government and Bengaluru Development Authority were responsible for creating a mess in the way of planned development of Bengaluru city.
7. However, It was held that the factual matrix referred in the case of Bengaluru Development Authority (supra) by the Supreme Court at paragraph- 19 of the aforesaid decision was not similar to the factual matrix obtained in the case of land. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the writ petition was allowed and the notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act was quashed.
-6-
8. Moreover, the decisions of the Co-ordinate benches in the case of Sri. Yethappa & Smt. Mahadevamma (supra) have become final and respondents have not challenged the decisions where the very same notification was quashed. Therefore this petition is allowed.
9. The impugned notification dated 13.12.2006 at Annexure - 'A' is hereby quashed in so far as the property of the petitioners is concerned.
It is ordered accordingly.
Learned AGA and learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 shall file memo of appearance/vakalath within a period of four weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE JT/-