Karnataka High Court
M Hemavathy vs Chitradurga Urban Development ... on 15 September, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1571"' DAY OF SE}?'I'EMBER.Q§I_1Q
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B, E O
WRIT PETITION NOS.215§35--5S9__ 20 :I0..A[LB--RER:S} _
BETWEEN:
1. MHEMAVATI-IY -.
W/O M.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH»._
AGED ABOUT 56 '
DARJI COLONY, 5T¥?,bCROSS.V»
GOPALApuRAROAD"~I: _
cH1'rRADUI2GA--5.77:30'1. "
2. DR.S.O.SHNA'PEASAD'
S/O S'%GURUNATH A
AGED ABOUT 60 'EEARS _
'V.P;.I3ADAVAIsé*E, 2&9' -CROSS
CI{ITRADUR(}I':\?57Z7"5O.1 .
3. _ B.RA;3Y.SHEKi€IARAPPA
'S,/'O LATE GURUBASAPPA
" AGED ABOUES2 YEARS
«_ 2&0 CROSS, J.C.R.EXTENSION
" _ 'C4H1'{RADURGA--577501.
' 44' ?f.Ii;:AGADEEsH
S/~O_.PU'FTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R' '5?" CROSS, J.C.R.EXTENSION
CH1TRADURGA--577'501.
E SMTUSHADEVI
W/O SPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SUB--DIVISION, ENGINEER
TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
CHIT'RADURGA-- 577501 . ., .PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI D.R.NAGARAJA, ADV., )
AND:
CHITRADURGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (CUBA)
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KELAGOTE
cHITRADURGA--5775o 1 . ...RES--I;Ot§if5'v - _
(BY:SRI R.S.RAVI,__,ADY.,} " S 3%
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE7FIL1E3D:UNDI3I§--AR'151CI:E]:
226 AND 227 01? THE coNS"£fI'mT1oN OF' I1\§Di.A PRAYING '
T0 QUASH THE 1MPUGNED'm.;MAND NO'1;ICB}S~»DA'.i'ED
1.6.2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-P;'=Q"'AND R~--_AND.7.6';.2o1o AS
PER ANNEXURESN TO 0 ISSUEDVBY TI-IE." «-- RESPONDENT
BY DECLARING THEM" AS 1i;LEoAL,.E:RRo:\I13;oUS AND ARBITRARY, BESIDES I13X.(.')ESSI\:TE ALND EXORBITANT AND THESE REIi'n_oN;_S V" FDR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, couafr' FOLLOWING:
:,_R__,D,_§___P.§ The"v~eDetitionei{s chalienged the demand notiC!i*j;SV datedn' ~ (AnneXures--P, Q, R,] and [Ar1I1.exureS~N, O) demanding the payment of consideration.
The facts of the case in brief are that the [respondent formed a layout in Chitradurga town. The ijettitroners are all the allottees of the Sites. After O "receiving the pI'€--fiX€d amount, the respondent executed the leaSe--cum--Sale agreement in their favour. The 38}:
respondent issued the notice, dated 3.12.2001 demanding the revised value of the sites.«j"'-::'f"TIl'p'I':e petitioners and the similarly piaced aliottees' " Petition Nos.43'78~-4414/2002 .l3Q.'?4?3»-.A it 3983 /2002, 9 146/2002, 13339/gm; whic,h~ _ be disposed of by this Court 'its order, 'V V quashing the impugned notices; dated 3.12.2001. This Courtlhasllli-eiid' ,'l_'E.::?c1'e"V__said notice is arbitrary, principles of natural reserved to the cause notices to the petitionelrs them an opportunity of hearing and ~pass,.approVpi'iate orders thereon.
A No-w__ the respondent has again issued the notices calling upon the petitioners
--V to additional amount of Rs.20/~ per sq.ft., which l2.jitxseif_a isfllnecessitated by the re«~determination of the ' value for the lands acquired.
4. Sri D.R.Naga_raja, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has even £891.
5
6. On hearing the learned advocates, I find that the impugned demand notices are not sustainahle. They are liable to be quashed on the . their not preceding by the issuan.C.e_of ti"
notice. The respondent has to take a'_"d~ecision only issuing the show cause._v"notice'- Vconsider_'1'1ig.. 'the '~ ' rep1y/ objections of the.petitionle1fS'~ei--fp_ the issuance of the notices are in violation of passed in Writ 3838/2002, 3974--a98'3/Vettnioa,*3;14a{;ioo2,"'r3ts39/2002. it would be met by treating the demand. notices7Vas'~"the show cause notices. The z?esert}ed"""to the petitioners to furnish their A.u:re:spondent within an outer iimit of one "today. Thereafter the respondent shall 3"~'~___V'~».consider3the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. if the petitioners want any details regarding the of acquisition, cost of development, the respondent it shall furnish the same toe petitioners.