Karnataka High Court
N Madesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos. 5809-12/2012 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. N. Madesha
S/o. Late Nanjaiah,
Aged about 62 years.
2. N M Sanjay
S/o. Sri Madesha,
Aged about 37 years.
3. Sneha Madesha
D/o. Madesha
Aged about 35 years.
4. S G Padmaja
W/o N Madesha,
Aged about 52 years.
All are R/at No.53, B603,
Aakashdeep, CHSL, Nehrunagar,
Kurula East,
Mumbai 24.
Maharashtra. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri Raghupathy K., Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development
2
M S Building,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority,
Mysore. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T P Vivekananda, Adv. a/w
Sri P S Manjunath, Adv. for R2
Sri Vijaya Kumar A Patil, HCGP for R1)
**********
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsements
dated 05.11.2011 bearing No.LAC 375/2011-12, 8/11/2011
bearing No.LAC 269/2011-12 8/11/2011 bearing
No.LAC371/2011-12 and 8/11/2011 bearing No. LAC
371/2011-12 issued by the 2nd respondent and etc.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing-B
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Land bearing Sy. No. 92 measuring 4 acres 21 guntas situated at Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore was acquired by the final notification dated 31.12.1992 vide Annexure-G. Petitioners claim to be the joints owners of the land in question having inherited the same from their ancestors. They contend that they have neither claimed any compensation nor received the award amount from the 2nd respondent. It is their case that they had made a request before the 2nd respondent to consider their claim for grant of 3 sites. They have placed reliance on the resolution dated 22.10.1990 passed by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) wherein, the MUDA is said to have resolved to provide sites in the layout for the land losers who had consented for acquisition.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the said resolution and inspite of the fact that the 1st respondent had indeed framed rules to compensate the land losers by allotting sites, no action is taken by the MUDA for grant of sites. The impugned endorsement is attacked on the ground that it is arbitrary and unsustainable as it suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant aspects.
3. Petitioners have placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court. In similar circumstances, in the connected writ petitions bearing W.P.Nos. 27743/2012 and connected cases disposed of on 15.03.2013, after consideration the respective contentions of both parties, I have issued a direction to the MUDA to reconsider the matter mainly on the ground that the endorsement issued was bereft of any reasons and was the result of non-application of mind. It is also stated by this Court in the said judgment that in the absence of reasons forthcoming 4 in the order/endorsement, the same cannot be supplemented by filing affidavits in the form of statement of objections. I have also made reference to the judgments on which the land owners who have lost their lands placed reliance in support of their case for allotment of sites. As this matter is also similar, similar directions deserve to be issued in this case also.
4. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed in part. Impugned endorsements are set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall consider the matter afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment dated 15.03.2012 rendered in W.P.No.27743/2012 and connected cases.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP