Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Melukote Vajrada Iyyangar Venkat vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2022

                                                  -1-




                                                            WP NO.16774 OF 2022



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
                              WRIT PETITION NO.16774 OF 2022 (LA-UDA)

                       BETWEEN:

                       SRI. MELUKOTE VAJRADA IYYANGAR VENKAT
                       S/O CHINNA IYYANGAR
                       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
                       R/AT NO.46, 2ND CROSS,
                       NEAR NAVASHAKTHI SCHOOL,
                       NANDANA NAGAR,
                       SHETTIHALLI,
                       BENGALURU NORTH - 560 015.

                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                             URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
                             VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed by          DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: High Court         BENGALURU - 560 001.
of Karnataka

                       2.    MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                             REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                             J.L.B. ROAD,
                             MYSURU - 570 007.

                       3.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                             MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                             MYSURU - 570 007.

                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                               -2-




                                        WP NO.16774 OF 2022

(BY SRI. NITYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1;
 SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 13TH
DECEMBER, 2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDNET NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A PUBLISHED U/S 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1987 IN RESPECT OF
THE   PETITIONER'S  LAND     BEARING   SURVEY   NO.206
MEASURING    3   ACRES    04   GUNTAS    SITUATED   AT
LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT AND GRANT THE SAME RELIEF AS IT IS
ALREADY PASSED IN SIMILAR WRIT PETITION NO.56078 OF
2016 DATED 03RD NOVEMBER, 2016, WRIT PETITION
NOS.29288-29289 OF 2019 DATED 12TH JULY, 2019 AND WRIT
PETITION NO.11742 OF 2020 DATED 21ST OCTOBER, 2020
VIDE ANNEXURE-C, C1 & C2 RESPECTIVELY; AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Sri. Nityananda K.R., learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Survey No.206 measuring 3 acres 04 guntas situate at Lalithadripura village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District was notified for acquisition as per -3- WP NO.16774 OF 2022 Preliminary Notification dated 13th December, 2006 (Annexure- A) under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. It is stated that this Court, in an identical matter, in the case of MAHADEVAMMA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition Nos.29288-29289 of 2019 decided on 12th July, 2019 (Annexure-C1), quashed the impugned Preliminary Notification dated 13th December, 2006 in respect of formation of the same layout. Following the law declared by this Court in the case of MAHADEVAMMA AND OTHERS (supra), the present writ petition is allowed by quashing the Preliminary Notification dated 13th December, 2006 insofar as the land belonging to the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE ARK