High Court Karnataka High Court

Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 26 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 26 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
BETWEEN : --

. 9:

3

IN TH E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. £3AN§3A1§O~R§;V'1'   _

DATED THIS '1'?-{E2 26?" DAY OF I?£<:BRL,!_4xVV2<§.i:o._ A V' "



THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K*;SR§?.I£D};L4§.FZ..RAO  

THE HONBLE MR. .IiJsfr1cfa:' )§g.'Vi~¢§.'\i/.f}1:\1\3uOOPAi;A'A'OOwDA
w.A. NO. 858'AOF":2cAo7.--{i}"P§A43;J?OA)

1.  H    V "" "
O/Os' LA:E(;Oxr1N£:A:A}1,.  
AOEDV57---'{.:;;AR.3_,-. '

  NO*f'CLA1ME1)}

2. HONNAMMAj~ _  __ '  
D/O, IATE"GOViNL"3AIAH._
_AG-E31165 YEARS-_. ' "
_; (SENIOR: <:1T12:ENs1~11P NOT CLAIMED]
A KALAEVIMA.
- "  _ D./O'.,'m*r§: GOVINDAJAI-I.
 « A-GED 5'E..--'{EARS.

4O  SVAPLAAMWE'/IA.
"D/O. LATE GOVII\fI)AiAH.
Amiasn 45 YEARS,

   BHAGYAMMA.

D/O. LATE GOVINDAIAH.
AGED 37 YEARS.

6. SRINIVASA,
S / O. LATE GOVINDAIAH .
AGEI) 50 YEARS,

3%

V



7'. RAMU.
S / O. LATE GO\/'INI')A{AH,
AGED 47 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT NO. I52 /213.
KANAKADASANAGAR.  
DAITAGAHALLE. ~ 
MYSORE. --- I ' 

  _   "~A.P.F?ELLAN"l'S
{BY SR1 R. L. PATH,{"'AD\.7OC Af"r£.«::_I .  "- « _

AND:--

I. THE S'I'A'I E',;_O'F }{;%\R§\fATA}{A;  I 
REP. THIE, .SEICP__E'I1ARY OF GOVERNMENT.
REVI;:NLI,EI_DE1%AR*I'IzIvEN<r..I-- ' 
MS BiJILD1EN(}.  'I  " 
13ANGA.1,0RI%:IA .~f5_60 00: I  '

2. MYSORE3 .URBAI\T Vrj~1¢'.j'_v,I_<-:L«:)_ PM ENT AU'i'I~IORI"IY._
JHANSI LAIKSHMI"'BAI.ARQAD.
MYSORE, " "   
BY ITS C{)MMISSjONER.

3.  THE) SPF;CIA1';-MINI) ACQUISITION OFI~'ICI:§R.

 Ix/IIILIA,  '  AV ' 

"JHAZf€SI"LAI?§.SHM*i' BAI ROAD.
MYSORE. 1 

 4 , ..  RESPONDENTS

» i f{3YI SR1 I.>.–.S. Ix/1AI\IJUNA’I*I~«I, ADVOCA’I’E FOR R2)
g_'{BY S-RE D. VIJAYAKUMAR. AGA FOR R1 & R3]

– ‘_I’AI7§IS”VV.A. IS FILED 13/5. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
I'{IG}=:¥wCOUR’I’ ACT PRAYING TO SE’? ASIDE TI–IE ORDER

_ ._*,PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.1. 1 I31/2005 DATED
%_S.10/94/2007.

U

‘J;

This appeal is coming on for preiimi1ia1ry”‘h*eaVi?i.1_ig’ this

day, SREEDI-[AR RAG. J.. delivered the ioiloxx-iin’g:V
JUDGMEgg i’°’

The land of the appellant/ iiwggs

the Mysore Urban Developnie_n’i~.Aut;h’orit’,yV ..iE’Ji:UDA’}ii’

for t.he formation ()fhQ1iSi}’1g lay’: ‘oL1_t[.” Preiiininaifyfl).’ioiifi(:at.i0n
was issued on 19.12fi’39.i.7.i«’i:ia} “d~e:t:i;i1ei3.tion is issued on
10.12.1992. The pet;it’1’o~ner qu_eisti9i’:edV”‘.ihe acquisition in

ijeitiition was dismissed.

h()we’V_e1′._ iibe1’7ty’vV._VW?is”-._§iiv_6:i”i- to the petitioner to seek

(ff3I1()Ui.i'(?€!i.’i€)~?’l. “‘i’i1e.:’ pet1’t_idonei’ filed W.A.No.659»661/2001

21ga;jii:1″st, 1.h{‘:’.V”Sfc}.Vid 01.1161′. The appeal also came to be

A disinis’sed._.

1.. .

– pet.it.ionei”s again filed W.P.Nos.40606-

4U6O8V_fO2V identical grounds. The said Writ’. petiion came

silo be disniissed. The Writ. Petition in question is the 3″ Writ

‘ V§3¢;’.T.1′.{‘I'()I] filed by the p€tiUOi1€’.1’S Ct1£1H€’.I’}giI}g the acquisition.

3. in ihe Writ Pet.ition it is the cont.eni.ion with the
MUDA is injtmcted by the order of this Court from takirig

Jossession. The E1’eiitioners Cont.im.1ed in >0-ssession and that
i

the appiication U/s. 48 is filed for denoiiiicatiofiV_:iiii1’iefi-..if/iei

1’0 be considered.

4. The Ieanied Sirfiie Judfeeii19i’as*,foL1i*id”i’h-:1I’*%;}1Ae

possession is already i’:21k;e11. “‘.,h”€i'”v’;’.fOi’C».'”‘q1.iQStiQV?1 hoi”.

Consideration of request -4V8{l)”»:ioes fmi. arise.
accordingly disniissed._ fin.e ‘.L_v1’i’i.,.pe.Litio’ii, Hence. this Writ,

Appeai.

5. Gotéhsel. appearing for the

ap})e}:iaI1t ii;l1i:3;’£..’vv_tl1is_’court, in WP. 7526-7528/94
had dii’eet.er:1 to consider the appiicrdlion for

derioiii’icai,ion._Tu;’iSL -41.é’j~1(i«]..’.if’ fiied by the petiilioiiers and also

‘ . di’i=ee1e.C1w.tl1″e aoquiflhg aui.ho1’iE.’y not. to take possession of the

prooupei%i;3ta.i,iv3ih’ appiicaiion is disposed off. ii. is submitied

E.I1f;_ii.. in srieve :5:-‘ the di.:’eet,1′.():n of this court. if: is L1m,en’c1b1e for

the aeqiiiriiig am14hon’ty to say ihat the possession is already

” « . V’ €..a1{e~:.1.

6. On careful perusai of the records. we are unable
1:0 with the submission of the counsel for the appellant,

beeemse the M.UI.)!-\ eiiaiienged the orcier passed in

W.P.N0s.7526–‘7528/94 in W.A.Nos. 659-66}/O2. In th’-‘sesaid

Writ appeais. the direction issued against. tI1e”2i(:’qi:ii.ri1i.g

aut1’10rity not {.0 take possession is set aside, “‘Fhi5’V’eOuifi’; V’

subsequently in W.P.N0s.40606~4(360E3/Q2 “tiiife<:VtVeci_fI4hVé;.1 ii

the eariier order passed in

effect, to. However. the orderi pg_14Ss_ed Bjenciii V

was not. brought to i';h€_,.1f10{iC€:Of. Capri 'vV.._P.N5s.40606~
40608/02. The said W1'ii\.PE.€;_ii1i;©f.1Eéef11.e.h1Q be disposed oi'

w'it.h0u1e notice it) MUDA'."'Ih::1.ha.t._Vie\irV'.0t'z&fiie matter, we find

that ,ihe1'e° _1egeii imiieciilnem. for the acquiring
auE.h0i'i"c_v to take.p§§s;$'e'sgii'0ifi.:The gram of request U/ 48(1)

is itllfile diS(?1'_€1if).£'i– 0i"1.hej'Governmem- the court. Cannot give

anvyapusiiiive direefioii in such matters. The writ. appea} is

~ "dis"riiié'::eei "

Sd/4
JUDGE

séfi
§§D§E