Karnataka High Court
Anandappa S/O Late Puttamadaiah vs The Mysore Urban Development Authority on 23 October, 2010
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
t Povo t IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23® DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 . BEFORE --_ THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUM: AR WRIT PETITION No. 1060/2009 | L A- -UD. A). , BETWEEN: Anandappa S/o. Late Puttamadaiah Aged 57 years ; R/at No.128, Ill Cress: oo K.N. Pura Layout, Udaya wit ry Vinayaka Road, = Kyathamarz anahalli, a wo, Mysore. an - o>... Petitioner. (By Sri.T. A, Karamb yaial h& Exes 'Vinitha, Advs.) AND: ; "1 -The Mys sore Urban Development Authority Jhansi.Laxmibat Road, Myscre, Rep. by its Commissioner. Ze The Spl . Land Acquisition Officer, ~ Mysore Urban Dev elopment Authority ~-Shansi Lakshmibai Road, _ Mysore. 3. The State of Karnataka Revenue Department M.S. Building, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore, of, By its Secretary. --Respondents. _ (By Sri Vivekanand for Sri P.S, Manjunath, Adv. for R- 1&2 Sri N.B. Viswanath, AGA for R-3) ae This Writ Petition is filed', urider Attic cles 26 @ & 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash. Annexure- F the 2 nd endorsement dated 14. 7.2004 issued: by the: 2 2M respons deiit, This Writ Petition coming GN. for v Breliminary hearing in ey c 063: ot "Be eb Peg oer om Sse! loo emp vs ro oy =
ook tent on = vn a Nrit peti tion ex.is a? eau ular ¢ c jurisdicticn. w rit petitione: - Claims to be the grandson of one Siddaiah through Siddaizh's, 3° son Puttamaddaiah, and in that _ capaci ity, claims interest in a portion of the original extent of and of 7.29 ac of land situated at Kasaba Hobli, Sathagalli Village, Mysore Taluk, The extent of interest so claimed by the s, 7 petitioner: is about 38 guntas and the grievance of the e petitioner 7 ih the earlier Writ Petition No.23078/2004 (LA- -RES) and even ing to the petitioner is (FQ ie now 'is that this extent of land belon being acquired without any acquisition proceedings, but purporting to be on the basis of a mutual consent, whereas the
-
Ghd very premise is wrong, incorrect as the petitioner had never given his consent for such acquisition nor for receiving. any compensation and in this back ground, while had approached... this Court earlier and that the petition was di sm rissed in the. first instance, nevertheless in W.A.No.2752/005. ihe... Division Bench of this Court taking note of the trava fees Annexure -- G to the petition, has _reservéd liberty to the petitioner to questiow the legality.of an €ndorsement dated 14.7.2004 reading asunder 2.
"To have coriside red your requisition dated 19.8.2004. The p 7085 eC Ssion of an extent of 6.29 ACKES ofl lands in Sy, No. 27. / is taken on 12.2.1986 by. mutual consent: Since the possession is taken : DY consent question of issuance of notification "does nok arise.
Sd/-
Special Land Acquisition Officer Urban Development Authority, Mysore 14/7" -
Lis: of ihe peti ioner t ps & It is on the strength of such observation made by this Court petitioner claims to have filed the present writ petition-well..
within 30 days time and for the following relief :-
the endorsement dated 14. 7.2004 beuri ing No, LAC. 7 (3) me 356/85-86 issued by the 2m res ponder (it) Declare that the respondents have AG right or power to take passesston of the la md'. in question without initiating acquisition proceedings. -
2. Appearing cn beha ulf « of 'the writ petitioner submission 4 of Sri. Karumbaiah, dea ned coun isel is that the endorsement is not tenabie in iaw; that the vesjotidene - acquiring authority has no power or jurisdiction'to take over the land of the petitioner without, th 1e acquisilio n proceedings; that when the petitioner ng to him, the pe 'his nde consented ror taking over the land belong "
respendent authority cannot in the guise of consent for : ». fequis sition fake over the land, which was not subject matter of ahy-consent given by the owner and the endorsement issued contrary to this factual position deserves to be quashed and the respondent authority be directed not only to compensate the t an i petitioner for the land acquired, but also to provide an alternative land in favour of the petitioner as part of the scheme
3. Notice had been issued to the responde nis and. tie respondents are represented by counsel . Statement o "ge objections have been filed on be half of.the respondents. The -- o petition is very vehemently opposed and it is Poi nted out that the petitioner has not com cout Ww ith Veli facts, has . suppressed facts and has deliberately..challen nged the, order passed in the earlier writ petition; which was he sate matter of the writ appeal. Itis pcinted.out th hat bys read ing the order passed in writ appeal this Court "has 'recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner is not he owner. cf the so called 38 guntas of land, LW rich: forme part of 6.acres 29 guntas of land, which has been .taken-over by. consent by the respondent-authority from its erstwhile owner and therefore, it can never be said that the for "netitionér-has any interest or grievance to espouse before this Court that the endorsement dated 14.7.2004 which has been
-.issued earlier, copy at Annexure-F is only sought to be quashed now purporting to be on the basis that the endorsement was not subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge, | i -6- while disposing of the writ appeal. But it is significant to notice i that the Division Bench has not set aside the order passed 'by the learned Single Judge particularly, recording a finding that 7 the petitioner is not the owner of the subj ect. | lands shies. is made the subject matter of the. writ petition and .therefore, petitioner was also inflicted with eXemiplary costs' of Rs.2.500/- and the present position is not any erent ha the Petitioner has only mis-used and abused the process. of lew and present writ petition des ives the sane 1 treatn ne ent ete. ~
4. A perusal ol of the petition - tadtngs in the earlier round and in the: present rouisd indicates that the order passed by this Court by the learned Single. Judge and the judgment of the Divisioi Bench andthe counter filed on behalf of the fespondents sin the present writ petition, clearly indicates tha the petitioner hes approached this Court time and again with
5. What extent of land the petitioner got to his share, being the grandson of late Siddaiah, whether in the family _7J-
partition the petitioner got to his share 38 guntas of land or otherwise is not a matter which is now placed before the e- Court, in a recognizable manner and more so, if the "finding "as * recorded by the learned Single Judge which was. at the © preliminary stage an adverse pean pai iticularl ly, whe' n the whit petitioner has not chosen to get that-o oiler erases that.order or Fr OL finding, the order passed in nthe t petiti ron is a Clear finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Iuded'in the.¢arlier round of writ litigation
6. An this, state' of affairs, elie sf sought for by the petitioner rs TK othing Short of ai Husionary relief and on the other hand, the fact of the matter is that the said endorsement was very "much in, existence at the time when the petitioner this, Court i in the earlier round of writ litigation, but oo =) mo oa oS CU ss Cy oo ony S,
- had deliberdtély chosen not to question the legality of the ; endorsement. but on the other hand, definitely had sought for a
--- dixection to pay compensation and for further directions to allot him an alternative site. An entitlement for compensation and if there is a scheme for alternative site are all matters to be gone
-g&.
into by the authority concerned. An allotment of that nature will be only to a person, whose land has been acquired:and not. and not otherwise. Whether the petitioner continues to: remain." in ownership of | acre 9'2 guntas of sland; or has acgire dit subsequently and as to whether th is extent Gf land is part 'of the land acquired in Sy.No.27/I, measuring 6 acres'29 guntas of land acquired by the authiority, and sisi the petitioner continues to have interest or not, need I not be "gone into by this Court, in the wake of th 1. find: ng recorded by this Court in the a wd earlier round of wit, litige ation, 'more so, when the petitioner having not made. his posit ion. clear by in ndicating the same in the present round-of Htigation. | 7 Be that as it fay, assuming that the petitioner is the owner of some partof the acquired portion of Sy.No.27/1, it is for the petitioner to claim reimbursement from the other "smiembers of the family, who have received compensation as it is 'the definite stand of the respondent - acquiring authority and as . indicated in the statement of objections that the authority has paid full compensation to the owners in respect of 6 acres 29 _9- guntas of land acquired by it and if so, there 1s nothing further for the authority to do in the matter. 2 OSA ort Or abuse oy tet
8. In my view, this writ petition is nothing of the process of writ jurisdiction of this € ourt, when there, is:
not even a semblance of right ard if at all such night Should t be questioned perhaps it is before the. CiviiCourt and. noi before this Court.
9. Sri Vishwanath, learned! AC AGA submits that costs levied is also not paid so far 'DY. the petitioner: -Petitioner's conduct while is, one warraniing 'initiation of contempt proceedings against him, instead of taking 'that course of action, as it is submitted by Sri Karumbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner is iat bona fice litigation is being pursued etc.; petitioner is mulcted with-costs of Rs.10,000/- for mis-using and wasting the . time o this, Court ot once, but earlier also.
10. Costs mulcted in the earlier round of writ tigation on "the 'pet itioner and the present cost to be deposited in favour of og the authority within four weeks from today, with liberty reserved to the respondent -- authority to draw the amount, g de y
- 10- failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the respondent - authority for the amount to enable . the respondent to realize it as though it is a decree passed-by-the. Civil Court.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost:
NG*