Sri Yethappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Yethappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2016

Bench: S Abdul Nazeer

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S ABDUL NAZEER

        WRIT PETITION NO.56078 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)

Between:

Sri. Yethappa
S/o. late Kalappa
Aged 42 years
Sarakari Uthanahalli Village
Varuna Hobli, Hadagana Post
Mysuru Taluk & Dist. - 570 010.
                                            ... Petitioner

(By Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, Adv.)

And:

1.     State of Karnataka
       Represented by its Principal Secretary
       Urban Development Department
       Vidhana Soudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi
       Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.     Mysore Urban Development Authority
       Represented by its Commissioner
       J.L.B.Road, Mysuru - 570 007.
                              2



3.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer
     Mysuru Urban Development Authority
     Mysuru - 570 007.
                                           ... Respondents
(By Sri.T.S.Mahanthesh, AGA for R1,
    Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, Adv., for 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 R2 vide Ann-A
published under Sec.17(1) of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authority Act, 1987 insofar as petitioner
lands bearing Sy.No.167/1A measuring 0.09 guntas and
0.01.50 guntas of 'A' karab total measuring 0.10.50 guntas
situated at Lalitadri Pura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru
Taluk & district and etc.


      This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

In this case, the petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the preliminary notification No.LAQ(4).CR.31/2005-06 dated 13.12.2006, whereby the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short 'the 3 MUDA') has proposed to acquire the land of the petitioner for the formation of a layout.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Admittedly, the final notification has not been issued for acquisition of the lands in question in furtherance of the preliminary notification. In an identical case, this Court in C.G Gangadhar /vs./ Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore and another - 2013(4) Kar.L.J. 559, has quashed the impugned preliminary notification therein. Following the said decision, this Court in W.P.Nos.10917-10923/2014 and connected matters (between Sri C.M.Swamy /vs./ Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore and another) has quashed the impugned preliminary notification therein.

4. For the reasons set out in the aforesaid orders, the preliminary notification impugned herein insofar as the 4 petitioner's land is concerned, is also quashed. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE SA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court