IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY or AUGUST 2003;v~.V_]'-[}.TH
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. D1NAKAR%/m,»%cH1EF"JU§iTI'CEf_' R
AND
THE HOi\!'BLE MR.JusT'iCE.%v.G'.'-sABHAHiTi'_jT«Ev...
WRIT APPEAL :_\!o.1807/2DD9_(1.A§ié.E«s5,__
BETWEEN: K O O'
1 SIDDAMMA
w/0 LATE~vE*IA,[)1'AIA%f{
AGED ABG.UT5;f64_YR4S_ ._
occ; AGRZCULT'URE',Cj' '
R/OEAOLAFWiA--iT.LY "
s1D'DAT.*.»
2 P _S_URESHABABU
£1./OTLATE KUNACHANA
-..A'GE£) ABOUT 46"'YRS
. * V. 1' occ;AG4RI»cuLTuRE,
" V _RKONO.v3'2D.3;;.YARAMAHALLY
. * TsTTzT1'Ts<R1z.sTa3~s:A TEMPLE ROAD,
' ._s1DDARTHANA<3AR,
f%'!YSORE" DISTRICT.
APPELLANTS;
'srf: MAHANTESH s HOSMATH, ADV., )
to make an application to the respondents to delete that
part of the area where they have put up their res..i’deii4tlila.lvv
houses. Learned single Judge has further .
such an application being given, __t.h.e__respo’nd’ents'”*s,hail~__,
consider the same and reconvey the c’ons*tru»c_ted:”arwea-¢;oT1.r_:
the petitioners, if it is found”t_hat the’-structtilriesfiflyii-e.re–5 in
existence as on the date of the p,r:e:iimi’n_,ary notification.
2. The saidwritretiitiont.i§i.o,;s82.,§}2oo8 was filed
by the appeltalnétsri:h:er~e:i,i§__fseyeiqérigv.”‘f’orWciuashing of the
preiirninar_y__,n’o’tif:i’ceit;i,on’ commissioner MUDA,
Mysore, ‘–:_iAat_r.-ti AV2Vll3″.wG:-6:19§2l_i.aivn.d’ the final notification issued
by the Under’ S-ecr’eta”ry tofiovernment, Bangalore, dated
18.o3._§1!99e5. It ‘i’s~l..ayerred in the writ petition that the first
1/..5.:Siddamma is the owner of the land in Sy.
Nl’o,_1″§–Q/l1″‘t«o~»_.._an,”e}<tent of 01 Acre 07 Guntas situate at
A A .A|ana'haiii
the said area. The property was acquired by the Mysore
Urban Deveiopment Authority (MUDA) without complying
with the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Deveioprnent
Act, 1987 and awards were passed. The first pe–ti’ti-o_’ner.,A4
being a poor widow beionging to scheduled caste; ‘
aware of the Court proceedings an:d~’c.o.uidf_:not
the notification before this Court. ;’ilow’ev’er,’ff’so’n1e
owners whose land had acAq”uireid.,VAf’it-.fil’e;d”‘WLP.
No.12699/1999 connected ‘i’\lo».»¢.i5..4i’§’.’-)2 to
45493/1999 and other writeapeiziifiiensfi’eds;giescrabed in the
writ petition chVai.i:engingI_’the’iiacgufiysitiovnzproceedings and
the said writVywpetiitionsf”-we-re’ ailowed by quashing the
notification”aa_nidvV tVi1e.7petiti*_oners being similariy situated
persor_igastr.that tnecfsyaid iwrit petitioners, are entitied to the
same;relievf_a.nd~.wherefore, the writ petition is filed for the
aiaoi/’eyire’fer’re.d’teiiefs.
” The Petition was resisted by the respondents.
Learned singie 3udge after considering the
.A:V’co_ntentions urged by the learned counsei for the parties,
\.r%
by common order passed in W.P. No.9829/2008 and WP.
NOS.5833/2008 and 10569/2008 dated O2.O3.2VGO_»9,
observed that in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in MUNITI-EIMMAIAH VS.
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (ILR 2;OU2″«Kf¥R the
provisions of Sections 6 and 11–A
Act, are not applicable as acquisition is vma’de”_:uVVnde’r” the
Urban Development Authority ,.-i\c’t;n_fi.e’a.r._ned’single Judge
. further held that the scherné n0t_.,:|iz§.{5.E’s¢3″d”..%is the lands
have been acqu.ired *1-pursuant}to~.lt’h>ej_~-finalfnotification and
award has layout has been
formed Alanahali:ii-.,$ec’o’n§-…_5gage, Mysore and thousands
of houses ‘have up”‘_.»i.and accordingly, declined to
_..V.interfe.ije” with the «acquisition proceedings. Learned single
A’=__3udge; h_as..%-reserved liberty to the appellants herein
(petAi’t.i.one”rsV”.i’n_ No.9829/2008) to make an application
-to the” resp.o’ridents to delete that part of the area where
it have” put up their residential houses. Learned single
..ili’JuAd:g’e’Ahas further observed that on such an application
‘fibleilng given, the respondents shall consider the same and
‘ reconvey the constructed area to the petitioners if it is
\»
found that the structures were in existence as on the date
of preliminary notification and accordingly, dismissed the
writ petition with the above said observations. Being
aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of
petitions, the petitioners in W.P.
preferred this Writ Appeai.
4. We have heard the iearned:..co;:n’se’i4_ap,peai:i_ng_.ii’
for the appellants and the iearned Additional
Advocate appearing for the respoxnciyent.
LeaVrr1’eci=-.,coun’sei—-appearing for the appeilants
reiterated the ligvrotrnds before the iearned single
___3udge.,and*.further~.submii:ted that the writ petitions filed by
.”~._ther«olwne’rs_of*~other Eands, which were acquired by the
l\/l’L}{)”i€=§_,ifoVr’ purpose have been allowed and the
V .Vpetitio’ner’s:&rnay also be given the same relief and the
single iudge instead of aiiowing the writ petitions,
erroneously dismissed the same.
“\«”>
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that the provisions of Sections 6 and 11–A of the
Land Acquisition Act are not appiicabie to the acquisition
made under the Urban Deveiopment Authority Act
of the decision of the i-ion’bEe
Munithimmaia’s case (supra) and r_a,o…g_rour:;ci””wna’tever’_’is
made out for interfering with the
and wherefore, the impugned passed by»t,he:._jEee.rn’ed
singie Judge is justified.
7. We have _ca_reiS_uiVi’.”consideration to the
contentions -. of.Vt’i*:.e=-._iearned~._ co-unset appearing for the
parties and “sc_rut,ini’zedrVtti’e:rnateriaE on record.
8.. _ The mate-ria’i’.on record wouid clearly show that
jT’ti~..eA :,.jcontentionA’o’f”‘the appeiiants herein in seeking for
‘t;;.ia’s,hiVnrg::::”tot’ preliminary notification and finai
notific,atio’n,~prarsuant to which, lands belonging to the
63-‘«i.__appeEian’ts__A** were acquired by MUDA, namely, non~–
to,nip_ii:a’nce of the provisions of Section 6 and 1:i.«-A of the
Acquisition Act, cannot be accepted in view of the
\5~5>.
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘in
iViunithimmaiah’s case referred to above. In view_4.ofV_fthe_
said decision of the Hon’ ble Supreme Court,
in the eariier writ petitions wouid __n..o.t__be _.he’:’pf.u’_i:.to: the
appeilants herein. Further, there is al:so..no’it»merit ‘i’r:Vfi:~heI1ct_’é
contention of the learned cot;-nxsel”‘ap’pear:i’n’gjthe
appeiiants that the scheme hasV_l_4apsed»._»as no’«de_yel_opment
has been made in the Via’nd.ol’_ Mere fact
that no deveiopm_r.-‘nit.’ aCtlVi?;’p’~ has” the land of
the to declare that
the on record wouid
clearly show’ compieted the acquisition
proceedingsrraridv the sites formed in the said
iayoutfito the aliottees and constructions have been put up
the a.reka%.–.:’T.h_ere is no allegation that there was any
nuegiig.enc’ea”‘_”_v»or’iflapse on the part of the MUDA in
–Vimple44n1efitin’g”‘V the scheme and wherefore, the learned
‘:f:~.ing’ie_3udge has rightly negatived the contention of the
.fj.–wr–it”‘petitioners (appellants herein) that the scheme haci
‘eiiapsed. In View of the decision of the Hon’ ble Supreme
Court in Munithimmaiah’s case, the learned single Judge
\.s9v
has rightly held that the decision relied upon by the
iearned counsei appearing for the writ petitioners
(appeliants herein) in W.P. No.24246/205 disposed ofon
19.12.2008 was not heipfui to the writ petitioners.
regard to the decision of the i~ion’ble Supreme:..tfo’u’rtgj~i..nf’…_”.
Munithimmaiah’s case referred to…at)_ove_-“a’S'”‘~;3lso”-the
finding of the learned single Judge that the»
iapsed and the MUDA has impieinjented the sc:henvi–e.,and i
has developed the layout substan:tial_l_y,_it isfcleair that the
writ petition filed by the petitionheifs -.,No.9829/2008
has been rightly _d–ismisse’d’i–b:y singie Judge
reserving~.._’iib–eityftofthei w’:i=i.t:’p.etit’ioners (appeilants herein)
to make an”*aupplVicVat_ion. tofithe respondents for excluding
_.._the are.5a,’v wherein”they have put up their residential houses
AV_andV’~t_he_,:res~pfondents were directed to consider such
app–lica.tioVn”a’nd”teconvey the constructed area to the writ
–petitions. was found that the structures were in
‘gtistengceyvffas on the date of the preliminary notification.
–..f.i#iaK.-Zinfgfffregard to the above said material on record, it is
that the impugned order passed by the learned single
‘4 ‘Judge reserving liberty to the appeliants herein is justified
\§.c%
-13-
and does not suffer from any error or iflegality as to cat} for
interference in this intra–Court appeaf and according§s_}_j;’-wézv
hoid that there is no merit in this Writ Appeal _
foflowing Order:–
The Writ Appeal is dismi:{s_ed_.
,_ 1 «V A Ice
” er Sd/..’
JUDGE
V’ FL”-na I’ V H . . . . . .. ‘V
“=__Ind’ex_; 4_
Web£’r~Eost ‘:’r–«§(_e€Z§j’/.–a’%£o