Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: citb in Sri N P Diwakar Seth vs The Special Land Acquisition Office on 2 September, 2025Matching Fragments
2. Heard Sri Rajarama Sooryambail, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M. Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
A notification comes to be issued by respondent No.1 - the then City Improvement Trust Board (for short 'the CITB), seeking acquisition of certain lands including the property of the petitioner, which was then in the hands of his father. Preliminary notification comes about on 17.01.1962 and a final notification is issued thereon. It is the case of the petitioner, that on 12.05.1964, respondent No.1, the then CITB has passed an award determining compensation to be paid pursuant to the said acquisition. Then comes a particular resolution of the CITB on 04.08.1965, indicating that the entire land of 8 acres and 30 guntas, which was sought for re-
NC: 2025:KHC:34375 HC-KAR conveyance by the father of the petitioner, cannot be re- conveyed, but to an extent of 2 acres and 25 guntas can be re- conveyed.
4. The representation submitted by the father of the petitioner was on 09.08.1965. The said representation is the dawn of hope of the father of the petitioner, that the lands would be re-conveyed and come back to him. The hope remained a hope and representations thereon were submitted since 1981. On 09.09.1983, the father of the petitioner had issued legal notice to respondent No.1. Later on 15.12.2004, submitted another representation seeking reasonable compensation and plethora of representations are submitted to the respondents. The CITB considering the representation dated 17.02.2012, has issued an endorsement. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said endorsement and seeking re-conveyance of the land.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire case of the petitioner is based upon a communication dated 04.08.1965, through which the CITB had opined that about 2 acres 2.25 guntas could be re-conveyed NC: 2025:KHC:34375 HC-KAR back to the hands of the father of the petitioner / petitioner. The re-conveyance did not happen. Therefore, he went on submitting representations and the representations were not acceded to and the petitioner now challenging the endorsement, seeks re-conveyance thereon.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Mysuru Urban Area Development Authority (then CITB) would take this Court through the statement of objections so filed, contending that the CITB then did not have the power to pass any resolution with regard to re-conveyance. Let alone the Board, even respondent No.2 does not have power under the Urban Development Authorities Act to re-convey the land, which is already a subject matter of acquisition and to which, an award determining compensation is already deposited before the concerned Court. In that light, he would seek dismissal of the petition on the score that the claim is stale and the petition is barred by delay and laches.