Karnataka High Court
Javaraiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION No.3089/2010
AND WRIT PETITION Nos.3090-92/2010 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN :
1. Javaraiah
S/o. late Javaraiah
Aged 85 years
2. J. Chikka Javaraiah
S/o. Javaraiah
Aged 35 years
3. J. Mahadeva
S/o. Javaraiah
Aged 33 years
4. J. Puttalingamma
D/o. Javaraiah
Aged 30 years
All are r/o. Bhugathagalli Village
Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk
And District ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, Adv.)
2
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by Secretary
Department of Housing
And Urban Development
M.S. Building
Bangalore - 1
2. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority
J.L.B. Road
Mysore - 571 005
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Mysore Urban Development Authority
J.L.B. Road
Mysore - 571 005 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, HCGP, for R-1
Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, Adv. for R-2 and R-3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the
scheme for which the acquisition of lands are lapsed u/s.27
of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act,
1987insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned,
acquired in pursuance of the notification issued under
Section 17(1) of the Act and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing 'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioners contend that they are the owners of different extent of lands at Nadanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. Their lands were acquired by the State Government for the formation of a residential layout. The final notification was issued as per Annexure-C dated 6.11.1997 under Section 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'). Admittedly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the acquisition proceedings have been dismissed. In the instant writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the scheme for which the acquisition was made has lapsed under Section 27 of the Act insofar as their lands are concerned.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that though the final notification was issued 4 as early as on 6.11.1997, the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA') has failed to execute the scheme substantially. It is argued that the petitioners' lands are situated in Nadanahalli village. Insofar as Nadanahalli village is concerned, the scheme has not been implemented in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to use the lands as the scheme has lapsed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that a similar writ petition was filed by Siddamma and Suresh Babu in W.P. No.9828/2008 seeking similar relief in respect of the lands situated in Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 2.3.2009. The writ appeals filed by them challenging the said order in W.A. Nos.2687-88/2009 have also been dismissed on 14.6.2010. It is contended that after acquisition of the lands in Nadanahalli and Alanahalli villages, it is made into a single layout called 'Vasanthnagar Layout'. In the writ 5 appeals, similar contentions have been rejected by the Division Bench. The review petition filed by the appellants therein in R.P. No.315/2010 has also been dismissed on 25.5.2012. It is further argued that the total extent of lands proposed for acquisition was 236.09 acres. The final notification was issued for 225.14 acres of land. An award was passed on 4.3.1998. The possession of 139 acres of land was taken and a layout has been formed and sites have also been allotted. The land owners in respect of 86.14 acres of land had approached this Court in several writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no prior sanction of the scheme. This Court while quashing the final notification has reserved liberty to the Authority to obtain sanction of the scheme and thereafter to continue with acquisition proceedings, if necessary. Pursuant to the said order, in the meeting held on 16.12.2006, 27.2.2007 and 24.3.2007, the Authority has resolved to continue with the acquisition proceedings in respect of 86.14 acres of land. Accordingly, proposal has been forwarded to the State Government on 6 1.6.2007 as per Annexur-R2. Thus, in an extent of 139 acres of land out of 225.14 acres of land, layout has already been formed. In respect of 86.14 acres of land, they could not form a layout on account of the quashing of the acquisition proceedings as above and that they have taken steps to form a layout in those lands as well. The petitioners have not produced any materials to show that the scheme has not been substantially complied with. On this ground also, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The proposal for acquisition of lands was 236.09 acres. It is clear that the final notification dated 6.11.1997 was issued for acquisition of 225.14 acres of land. After passing of the award, possession of 139 acres of land was taken by respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has formed a layout in 139 acres of land and sites have been 7 allotted to the general public. It also not in dispute that several writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of 86.14 acres of land. This Court allowed those writ petitions on the ground that there was no prior sanction of the scheme. This Court has reserved liberty to the respondent-Authority to obtain sanction of the scheme and thereafter, to continue the acquisition proceedings, if necessary. The materials on record would clearly disclose that the respondent-Authorities have resolved to continue the acquisition proceedings in respect of 86.14 acres of land and the proposal has been forwarded to the State Government as per the communication dated 1.6.2007 (Annexure-R2). It is, thus, clear that the scheme has been substantially complied with. In respect of 86.14 acres of land, they could not implement the scheme on account of quashing of acquisition proceedings in respect of those lands by this Court. However, they have taken steps to acquire those lands also.
8
6. It is well established that for the scheme to lapse under Section 27, there must be dereliction of duty or failure on the part of the authority to execute the scheme specifically within five years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. It is for the petitioners to place necessary material before the Court to show that there has been dereliction of statutory duties and no mere delay in implementing the scheme [(see A KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) BY L.RS. VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (1996(3) KLJ 506)].
7. The petitioners have not produced any material to show that the scheme has not been substantially complied with except an assertion in the writ petitions to that effect. The materials placed by the MUDA would clearly disclose that the scheme has been substantially complied with. The MUDA has also assigned cogent reasons for not implementing the scheme insofar as 86.14 of acres of land 9 is concerned. The MUDA cannot be held responsible for not implementing the scheme insofar as 86.14 acres of land is concerned. It is also clear that the acquisition of lands in Alanahalli and Nadanahalli villages have been clubbed and a layout called 'Vasanath Nagar Layout' has been formed. As noticed above, Siddamma and P. Sureshbabu had filed a writ petition in W.P. No.9829/2008 raising similar contentions in respect of the lands situated in Alanahalli village. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 2.3.2009. In W.A Nos.2687-2688/2009, the appellants therein raised the contention as under:
" The learned counsel for respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA') submitted that Alanahalli II Stage Layout has been subsequently named as Vasanthanagar in Mysore City and by mistake since the information was called for by the petitioners in respect of Alanahalli II Stage without realising that said Alanahalli II Stage has been changed as Vasanthanagar in Mysore City, endorsement has been issued under the Right to Information Act. Learned Counsel for the second respondent has 10 produced the original record to show that 2018 sites have been formed and distributed. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that acquisition has been made separately for Vasanthanagar and writ appeal may be allowed."
The said question has been answered by the Division Bench as under:
" From the original records produced by the MUDA, it is clear that Alanahalli II Stage was later named as Vasanathanagar and 2018 sites have already been formed in the layout and distributed. Merely because no construction has been put upon the land belonging to the petitioners which is acquired cannot be said that the scheme has not been implemented substantially."
7. There is no merit in these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Cs/-