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 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri V Mahesh vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 24 October, 2016

Author: S.Abdul Nazeer

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

       WRIT PETITION Nos.51216-51219 OF 2014
                        C/W
       WRIT PETITION No.52944 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)


IN W.P.Nos. 51216-51219 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI V. MAHESH,
       S/O LATE VENKATACHALA,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
       NO.905/151, 4TH MAIN
       5TH CROSS, KHILLE MOHALLA,
       VIDYARANYAPURAM,
       MYSORE CITY.

2.     SRI SHIVAKUMAR
       S/O LATE VENKATACHALA
       AGED 45 YEARS
       NO.1111, KHILLE MOHALLA
       J .L. B. ROAD,
       MYSORE CITY.                      ... PETITIONERS

       (BY SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV. FOR KESVY & CO.,)
AND:

1.     MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
       AUTHORITY, J. L. B. ROAD,
       MYSORE-570 004.
       REPRESENTED BY
       ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
       OFFICER, MUDA, J. L. B. ROAD
                              2



       MYSORE-570 004.

3.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
       AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
       VIKASA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE-560 001.                 ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R3
           SRI T. P VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R1 & 2)

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH     THE   IMPUGNED    PRELIMINARY   NOTIFICATION
DT.12.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE R1, U/S.17(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987
ANN-A, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY, WHICH IS
THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

IN W.P.No. 52944 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

NANJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O MARINANJAIAH,
R/AT MAANANDAVAADI ROAD,
J.P.NAGAR, LAST CROSS
MYSURU-570 031.                               ... PETITIONER

       (BY SRI RENUKARADHYA.R.D, ADV.)
AND:

1.     MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       MYSURU-570 001.
       REPRESENTED BY IT'S COMMISSIONER

2.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       DEPARTMENT OF
       URBAN AND HOUSING,
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU-560 001
       REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY       ... RESPONDENTS
                               3



      (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R2
          SRI T. P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R1)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DTD. 12.12.2006 (ANNX-A)
PASSED BY THE R-1 AS FOR AS THE LAND BELONGING TO THE
PETITIONER.

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the preliminary notification No.LAQ(6).CR.434/2005-06 dated 12.12.2006, whereby the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short 'the MUDA') has proposed to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the formation of a layout.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Admittedly, the final notification has not been issued for acquisition of the lands in question in furtherance of the preliminary notification. In an identical case, this Court in C.G Gangadhar /vs./ 4 Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore and another - 2013(4) Kar.L.J. 559, has quashed the impugned preliminary notification therein. Following the said decision, this Court in W.P.Nos.10917- 10923/2014 and connected matters (between Sri C.M.Swamy /vs./ Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore and another) has quashed the impugned preliminary notification therein.

4. For the reasons set out in the aforesaid orders, the preliminary notification impugned herein in so far as the petitioners lands are concerned is also quashed. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE KLY/