Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahadevaswamy vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 28 November, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 19682 OF 2007 (LA-UDA)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.27261-27263 OF 2011 (LA-UDA)
WRIT PETITION Nos. 27265-27267 OF 2011(LA-UDA)
WRIT PETITION No.27268 OF 2011(LA-UDA)
WRIT PETITION No.27269 OF 2011 (LA-UDA)
WRIT PETITION Nos.27890-27891 AND 35228 OF 2011
(LA-UDA)
WRIT PETITION No.27893 OF 2011 (LA-UDA)
WRIT PETITION No.27894 OF 2011 (LA-UDA)
AND
WRIT PETITION No.27895 OF 2011 (LA-UDA)
2
IN W.P.No.19682 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahadevaswamy,
Son of Late Mahantaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Lalthadripura Grama,
Varna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District,
Mysore. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna , Advocate )
AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, MUDA,
Mysore.
2. The Special Revenue Inspector,
MUDA, Mysore.
3. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Laxmibai Road,
Mysore,
Represented by its
3
Commissioner.
[added as per the order
Dated 25.10.2010] ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Respondent Nos. 1 , 2 and 4
Shri. H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.3)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the first respondent to
quash the final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, vide
Annexure-A; direct the first respondent, to quash the preliminary
notification, issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987, dated 15.7.1997, with respect
to the schedule property vide Annexure-B and direct the
respondents to release the schedule property in favour of
petitioners.
IN W.P.Nos. 27261-27263 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Chinnamma,
Wife of Chikkanna,
Aged about 58 years,
2. Sri. Puttappa,
Son of Late Sannappa,
Aged 58 years,
3. Sri. Madappa,
Son of Late Sannappa,
4
Aged about 55 years,
Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are
Residing at Lalithadripura Village,
Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk
and District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
5
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 Annexure-A
and the final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated
18.1.2002 - Annexure-B.
IN W.P.Nos. 27265-27267 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Mahadevamma,
Wife of Late Puttabasappa,
Aged 60 years,
2. Sri. Nanjundappa,
Son of Late Basavaiah,
Aged 65 years,
3. Sri. Madappa,
Son of Late Marraiah,
Aged 60 years,
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are
Residing at Lalithadripura Village,
6
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B.N. Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
7
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
These Writ Petitions are file under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated 13.12.2006 passed by
the first respondent.
IN W.P.No.27268 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. Vijayakumar,
Son of Venkatappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at Lalithadripura Village,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
8
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification
issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 vide Annexure-A and the
final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated 18.1.2002 vide
Annexure-B.
IN W.P.No.27269 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. Vishakanta,
9
Son of Nage Gowda,
48 years,
Residing at No.110,,
Lalithadripura Village,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
10
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification
issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 vide Annexure-A and the
final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated 18.1.2002 vide
Annexure-B.
IN W.P.Nos.27890-891 AND 35228 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Madappa,
Son of Maramma,
Aged 58 years,
2. Sri. Puttappa,
Son of Maramma,
Aged 60 years,
Both petitioners 1 and 2
Are residing at Lalithadripura Village,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
11
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
12
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary
notification issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 vide
Annexure-A and the final notification issued under Section 19(1)
and (2) of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987
dated 18.1.2002 vide Annexure-B.
IN W.P.No.27893 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. Puttalingappa,
Son of G Nagalingaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at Lalithadripura Village,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
13
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification
issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 vide Annexure-A and the
final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated 18.1.2002 vide
Annexure-B.
IN W.P.No.27894 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Sri. M. Swamy,
Son of Late Mahadevaiah,
14
Alias Mahadevappa,
Aged 58 years,
Residing at Lalithadripura Village,
Varuna Hobli,
Mysore Taluk and District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
15
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification
issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 vide Annexure-A and the
final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of Karnataka
Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated 18.1.2002 vide
Annexure-B.
IN W.P.No.27895 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Smt. Padmaja,
Wife of Shantharaju,
Aged 50 years,
Residing at No.412,
11th Main Road,
Halanahalli Extension,
Mysore City. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.N.Shivanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
16
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
3. The Special Revenue Officer,
Mysore Urban Development
Authority (MUDA),
Jhansi Lakshmibai Road,
Mysore.
4. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Karnataka,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. H.T.Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for Respondent
No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification
issued under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act 1987 dated 15.7.1997 vide Annexure-A and the
final notification issued under Section 19(1) and (2) of Karnataka
17
Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 dated 18.1.2002 vide
Annexure-B.
These petitions, having been heard and reserved on
19.11.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the grounds urged in these petitions are identical, as are the facts and circumstances.
2. Each of the petitioners have furnished particulars of the lands and the manner in which the same have been acquired . The lands in question are various parcels of agricultural land of Lalithadripura village, Varuna hobli, Mysore Taluk and District.
It transpires that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Urban Development Authority, Mysore , had issued a notification dated 15-7-1997, under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA Act', for brevity), duly 18 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 24-7-1997, proposing to acquire 431.08 acres of land of Lalithadripura village, for the formation of a housing colony known as the Lalithadrinagar Extension. Thereafter, a final notification under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act dated 18.1.2002, was issued declaring that 345.11 guntas of land were needed for the above purposes.
It is contended that Awards were passed in respect of the lands so acquired, spread over the period between November 2003 to July 2004 and the same had been duly approved by the government. It is further stated that possession of the lands had been taken during the year 2005. It is the said acquisition which is under challenge in these proceedings.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Award passed in each of their cases , is well beyond the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity).
19
The acquisition proceedings are also vitiated on account of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner is the designated competent acquiring authority. In the instant case, such authority having been delegated in favour of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, is bad in law.
That the notified khatedars were not in fact the actual Khatedars and hence the proceedings are without notice to the actual persons in possession of the respective properties.
It is claimed that actual physical possession of the lands in question of each of these petitioners was never taken, as the concerned officer had not visited the lands in question and taken physical possession as required under Section 16 (1) of the Act.
That in terms of Section 27 of the KUDA Act, the Scheme under which the lands are acquired, should be implemented within a period of five years from the date of final notification. It is claimed that it has not been so implemented.
20
3. It is contended on behalf of the respondent - authority that the several grounds raised in the petitions are not tenable. It is contended that though the petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the respective properties, in so far as the authority is concerned, it is pointed out that Section 17(5) of the KUDA Act contemplates service of notice on every person, whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue on any building or land, which is proposed to be acquired. It is settled law that in such circumstances, the acquiring authority is not obliged to conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain the particulars of any and all persons who may seek to claim a interest in the property, other than the person who is shown as the Khatedar at the relevant point of time. It is asserted that the authority has strictly followed the procedure in issuing notices to all such persons whose names were reflected in the available and relevant records of the local authorities. 21
In so far as the contention that the awards passed in respect of the land are contrary to Section 11A of the LA Act is concerned, it is pointed out that the said section would have no application to the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the KUDA Act, as held by the apex court in the case of Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka ILR 2002 Kar. 3023 (SC) .
As regards the contention that the authority has failed to execute the Scheme within a period of five years from the date of final notification and hence the Scheme has lapsed etc., it is pointed out that there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of authority to execute the scheme substantially. A substantial execution depends upon the magnitude of the scheme , the nature of the work that is executed and that which remains to be executed. There must be a dereliction of duty by the authority without justification and not mere delay in performing any such duty.
22
On the other hand it is asserted by the respondent that the authority has proceeded with all due diligence in the proceedings.
It is contended that the award was passed on 24.05.2003. The award notice under section 12 of the KUDA Act was required to be issued to as many as 164 persons, which involve considerable time. After waiting for considerable time for the claimants to receive the award, the possession of the land was taken on various dates between 03.11.2003 and 21.07.2004. Possession of the land in Sy. No.24/1 and 24/2 was taken on 25.05.2005. The total extent of land notified in the notification issued under Section 19 KUDA Act was 345 acres 11 guntas. The total extent of land of which possession was taken was 335 acres. The extent of land, of which possession is yet to be taken is 10 acres 11 guntas.
4. It is further contended that the first tender notification was issued on 27.02.2006. In view of the fact that the approval of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board had not been 23 obtained, the said tender notification was not progressed. The consent of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board was obtained on 02.08.2007. In the said consent order dated 02.08.2007, it has been stated that since the project attracts provisions of the EIA notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the proponent was advised to obtain environmental clearance from the competent authority, namely, the State or Central Government. No construction work, preliminary or otherwise relating to development of layout was to be undertaken till environmental clearance was obtained from the competent authority.
5. Further, it is contended that the grant of approval of the Government was sought on 23.08.2007 to split up the civil work for formation of the layout into eight components. The Government on 23.06.2008 had directed the Mysore Urban Development Authority to furnish the revised proposals and accordingly, the revised proposal was sent on 30.07.2008 for 24 taking up of the First Stage of Lalithadripura and one package excluding the electrification work. It is claimed that the Government had accorded approval to the proposal on 29.08.2008. On the basis of the approval accorded by the Government, tender was called on 06.09.2008. Since there was only one bidder, the tender was cancelled. Fresh tender was called for on 25.02.2009. Since this tender process was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1556/2009, the same was cancelled and a fresh tender was ordered to be called on 14.09.2009. The fresh tender was called on 16.12.2009. Tendering process have been completed and the work order had been issued to the Contractor with a direction to complete the work within 11 months from 12.4.2010. For the tendering process alone, the authority had spent `12.17 lakh. In addition, the compensation amount paid is indicated by the respondents in tabular form thus:
Compensation amount payable as per award 164 owners Total amount of compensation 25 Payable `10,14,63,592/-
Number of persons who had received the award 134 Total amount of compensation paid `7,55,72,496/-
Number of persons who had
not claimed compensation 23
Amount of compensation deposited
in the Court `99,83,652/-
Number of persons to whom
Compensation was yet to be paid 7 - `1,59,07,534/-
Total compensation `10,14,63,592/-
Further, the respondents have filed before this Court progress reports of the implementation of the work from time to time. A report was filed on 3.1.2011 and a further report by way of a statement dated 2.7.2011was filed. The same reads as under:-
"The respondents had filed on 03.01.2001 a
consolidated statement relating to the formation of
Lalithadrinagara Layout at Mysore indicating extent of the work done for implementation of the scheme.26
When the matter was taken up for consideration on 20.06.2011, the respondents had submitted to the Court that the respondents will file further reports showing the upto date position of formation of layout. Accordingly, this report is being filed. The civil engineering works relating to formation of the layout has divided into two Zones, North Zone and South Zone and the details regarding different Zones are separately given.
North Zone:
1. Formation of roads - 3190 Rmtr. Completed i.e., 3.10Kms.
2. Overhead tank - Construction is in progress.
3.Ground level reservoir - RCC columns have been erected.
4. Number of bore wells dug - 1.
South Zone:
1. Earth work for leveling of the ground - 110 Kms. Completed.
2. Formation of road - 10.76 Rmtr.
3. Construction of box drains - 21.25 Kms.
4. Construction of short basement for park - 3224 Mtrs.
5. Construction of overhead tank - concreting of the bottom doom of the overhead tank is completed.
6. Construction of ground level reservoir - one completed.
7. Number of bore wells dug - 10 Nos.
8. Number of cross drain work - 14 Nos. completed.
9. Laying of underground drainage stoneware pipes - 6064 Mtrs. Completed.27
10. Manhole - 310 Nos. Completed.
11. Water supply pipeline - 7504 Mtrs. laid
12. The percentage of land utilized for the formation of the layout is 44%
13. For financial progress achieved so far `6,74,00,000/-
14. Financial progress achieved as per the last report 01.01.2001 - `1,68,01,437/-.
3. Detailed layout map wherein showing the works carried out in the South Zone is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R22.
4. Detailed layout map indicating the formation of roads in the North Zone in the enclosed layout map which is marked as Annexure-R23."
6. It is contended that the above facts demonstrate that there was no negligence and dereliction in performance of the duty by the Mysore Urban Development Authority in substantially implementing the scheme and therefore, merely on the ground that the period of five years had elapsed, the Scheme could not be said to have lapsed under Section 27 of the Act since the possession of the land had been taken and the land had vested in the 28 Government. Even if the petitioner were to obtain a declaration that the scheme had lapsed, it would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner in as much as there cannot be redelivery of the possession of the land to the petitioner on the ground of lapse of the scheme. Since the land had been acquired by the Government for a public purpose and if the said public purpose is not served by a lapsing of the scheme, it was open to the Government to utilize the said land for some other public purpose. As the petitioner did not get any personal benefit or advantage by a declaration that the Scheme had lapsed, the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of such declaration in favour of the petitioner, who had approached the Court after passing of the award was not called for.
7. In the above background, the main dispute is as regards the question whether the respondents have substantially implemented the scheme of formation of the lay out. Incidentally, 29 it is noticed that the respondents in this case have been put through the acid test by this court in the course of the pendency of this petition, since the year 2010. The record is replete with "Additional statement of objections", Affidavits and memoranda, filed by the respondents placing extensive details of the progress of work achieved in the formation of the layout, periodically, before this court, possibly on account of the petitioners frequently complaining to the court of the respondents not having made any progress in the implementation of the scheme on the one hand and of alleged attempts at forcible dispossession of the petitioners on the other. The matter has been heard extensively from time to time as seen from the record. The onslaught by the petitioners did not stop even at the stage of final hearing before this bench, in the petitioners insisting that they have continued in possession and that there is no progress in the execution of the works. The respondents were therefore compelled to furnish further material even as late as 22-11-2012 to demonstrate that sites have been formed and allotted and a detailed list of such allottees uploaded 30 on its website is made available, at the demand of the petitioners, to demonstrate that the Scheme has been substantially implemented.
Having regard to the abundant material available on record to demonstrate the substantial implementation of the Scheme by the respondents as on date - there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
8. The incidental controversy raised as regards possession of the petitioners' lands not having been taken etc., is mainly seeking to press into service several decisions of the apex court and this court as to the manner in which the taking of possession ought to be demonstrated in claiming that the land has vested with the State. In the instant case, there is no warrant to embark on any such enquiry. The respondents have adequately demonstrated the taking of possession of the lands in question. The surreptitious re- entry of any party into what is apparently vacant land would hardly advance the case of the petitioners. The petitioners 31 miserably fail on all grounds urged - as the respondents have answered the same adequately and this court accepts the stand of the respondents on those grounds.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv