Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajappa vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 30 March, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.7354-7371 OF 2015 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Rajappa,
Son of Late Huchchaiah,
Aged about 46 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
2. Sri. Somanna,
Son of Late Huchchaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
3. Sri. Basavanna,
Son of Late Huchchaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
4. Sri. Mahadevappa,
2
Son of Late Huchchaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
5. Sri. Kosanna,
Son of Late Huchchaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
6. Smt. Chinnamma,
Wife of Late Huchchaiah,
Aged about 80 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
7. Sri.R. Shivanna,
Son of Late Rangegowda,
Aged about 60 years,
Resident of No.324,
Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
8. Sri. C. Huchchappachari,
Son of Late Channachari,
Aged about 60 years,
Resident of No.260,
Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
3
9. Sri. Puttaswamy,
Son of Late Lingachar,
Aged about 64 years,
Resident of Muneshwara Nagar,
Ooty Main Road,
Mysore 570 028.
10. Sri. Kalappa,
Son of Late Nanjappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
11. Sri. Basavaraju,
Son of Late Nanjappa,
Aged about 36 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
12. Sri. A. Hemanthkumar,
Son of Late Annegowda,
Aged about 40 years,
Resident of Siddalingapura,
Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
13. Sri. Suresh Babu,
Son of Late Kunjama,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of No.HIG B2,
Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Kalyani Girinagar,
Mysore 570 019.
4
14. Sri. Devaiah,
Son of Late Bhujanga,
Aged about 56 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
15. Smt. Siddamma,
Daughter of Late Bhujanga,
Aged about 70 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
16. Smt. Devamma,
Daughter of Late Bhujanga,
Aged about 68 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
17. Smt. Kempamma,
Daughter of Late Bhujanga,
Aged about 53 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028.
18. Smt. Tholasamma,
Wife of Late Swamy,
Aged about 47 years,
Resident of Lalitadripura,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore 570 028. ...PETITIONERS
5
(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mysore Urban Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner.
Mysore 28.
2. State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development,
Represented by its Secretary,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.2)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the
respondent and to quash the notification dated 13.12.2006 vide
Annexure-A issued by the first respondent in so far as the land
in Sy.Nos.5 and 124 of Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District, belonging to the respective
petitioners.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
in 'B' Group, this day, the court made the following:
6
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners 1 to 6 claim to succeed one Huchchaiah, who was the owner of land measuring 31.08 guntas of Lalithadhripura village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. The break-up of the extent of land held by each of the petitioners, is said to be 5.08 guntas each.
The petitioner No.7 is said to be the owner of 20 guntas of land in land bearing Sy.No.5 of the same village. Petitioner No.8 is the owner of 21 guntas of land in land bearing Sy.No.5 of Lalithadripura village. The petitioner Nos.9 to 13 are also owners of 31.08 guntas, 25 guntas, 1 acre 6 guntas, 10.08 guntas and 20 guntas of land respectively. The particulars of land in Sy.No.5 of Lalithadripura village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District, owned by petitioners 7 to 13 is indicated in a tabular column thus:
7
NAME OF THE PETITIONER EXTENT
R. SHIVANNA 20 Guntas
C. HUCHCHAPPACHARI 21 Guntas
PUTTASWAMY 30.08 Guntas
KALAPPA AND N. BASAVARAJU 25 Guntas
N. HEMANTH KUMAR 1.06 and 10.08 guntas
SURESH BABU 20 guntas
It is claimed that petitioners 14 to 17 had succeeded to the land acquired by Bhujanga, as legal heirs.
3. It transpires that the Respondent No.1 had issued a preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KUDA Act', for brevity) dated 13.12.2006. However, no further steps have been taken to issue a final notification as required under Section 19 of the KUDA Act. It is in this background that the present petitions are filed to claim that the respondents having abandoned the scheme for all 8 purposes, it should be held that the scheme has lapsed and therefore seek a declaration to that effect.
4. The respondents have entered appearance and have filed Statement of objections to contend that it is indeed true that after a preliminary notification, a final notification has been sent to the State Government for approval, which is yet to be received and it is likely to the received any time now, and therefore, there is no warrant to entertain these petitions, as no time limit is prescribed under the KUDA Act for issuance of a final notification and hence, there is no warrant for interference and seeks that the petitions be dismissed.
It is however to be noticed that though the KUDA Act does not prescribe a time limit within which a final notification under Section 19 ought to be issued after issuance of the preliminary notification, it is to be kept in view that the KUDA Act is a legislation providing for compulsory acquisition. Therefore, to contend that there is no time limitation within which the acquisition proceedings can be taken to its logical 9 conclusion, is not tenable. On the other hand, the Act does prescribe limitation in terms of Section 27, which indicates that if the scheme has not been substantially implemented within five years from the date of the final notification, the scheme is said to have lapsed.
5. Applying the said analogy, if the fact that after the preliminary notification was issued on 13.12.2006, no final notification is issued even 10 years thereafter, it would appear that the acquisition proceedings are delayed twice over, which would be a ground to hold that the scheme has lapsed. In that, the scheme itself lapses if it is not substantially implemented five years after issuance of the final notification and it would be doubly delayed if no final notification at all has been issued even after 10 years from the date of the preliminary notification.
6. Consequently, it can safely be said that the respondents have abandoned the acquisition and have no intention of implementing the same. Therefore, this court would presume 10 notwithstanding the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the authority is not precluded from obtaining approval from the State Government even as on date and issuing a final notification. Such a contention is unjust and unfair and would militate violently against the land owners whose valuable property is sought to be taken away at the whim and fancy of the authority.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS