Karnataka High Court
Sri Madappa vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.52309 OF 2019 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Madappa,
S/o Late Maraiah,
Aged about 62 years,
R/o # 686,
Alanahalli Grama Panchayathi,
Lalithadripura,
Mysuru - 570 028. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. K.R. Lingaraju, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Mysuru Urban Development
Authority,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
J.L.B. Road,
Mysuru - 570 007.
3. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer,
Mysuru Urban
Development Authority,
Mysuru - 570 007. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Kavitha H.C, HCGP for R.1;
Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, Advocate for R.2 & R.3)
-2-
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 respondent No.2
vide Annexure - A published under Section 17(1) of the
Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 in respect of
the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.110/3 measuring 0.05.00.00
guntas situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru
Taluk and District (Sl.No.61 in Preliminary Notification) and
grant same relief as it is already passed in similar
W.P.Nos.56078/2016 (LA-UDA) dated 03.11.2016 and
W.P.Nos.29288-29289/2019 (LA-UDA) dated 12.07.2019 vide
Annexure - D and D1, respectively.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
In this petition the petitioner seeks 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.
2. The notification of acquisition was issued for the formation of layout known as "Lalithadri Nagar, 2nd Stage". The land belonging to the petitioner bearing survey No.110/3 measuring 0.05.00.00 guntas, situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, was notified for acquisition.
-3-
3. The grievances of the petitioner 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 petitioner draws the attention of this Court to two decisions of Co- ordinate benches of this Court in the case of Sri. Yethappa v/s State of Karnataka and others in WP No.56078/2016 which was decided on 03.11.2016 and Smt. Mahadevamma and others v/s State of Karnataka and others in WP Nos.29288-29289/2019 which was disposed on 12.07.2019 wherein the very same notification dated 13.12.2006 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 -4- 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 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 para-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. -5-
7. However, It was held that the factual matrix referred in the case of Bengaluru Development Authority (supra) by the Supreme Court at para-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.
8. Moreover, the decisions of the Co-ordinate benches in the case of Sri. Yethappa & Smt. Mahadevamma (Supra) have become final and respondent 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 petitioner is concerned.
It is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE LL