High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Chikkamari @ Bikkla vs Mysore Urban Development … on 28 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkamari @ Bikkla vs Mysore Urban Development … on 28 July, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana


1

as; THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALoRE« “‘.T

DATED THIS THE 28th my OF’ JULY 2008 *

PR ESENT:

THE HQIWBLE MRS.JUS’I’iCE1 MAs§JU:};é\’::;%;.*aLLU}§–

AND

THE H{)N’BLE MR.JUS?I(3E K,N_.1<;Es:«JAvANARéfi:9§NA; V' 1'

W.A.NO.1S1'7 1 2037'-.f:i;A–Ui).A':

BETW EEN:

SR1 CH1KKAMARI@BxKKLA_” .

S/(3 LATE DODDA_BEERA.¥AH’–.. ‘

AGED 65 YEARS-_ V _
R/0 HINKAL v.ILL;a»:;E . ”

KASABA HCQBLI ‘ .. .

MYSORE 5 1{)_ 0–1_7,’_

Srs/fl’ P¥iiLOMI”?3A RO.DR1GU_ES .
D/OR(}–DRIGUES’:”‘-.A ‘ ‘ ‘
AGED 45«YE:–ARs_ ”
r~:o.195s, Ia-1,eC;’a.rI’gAe.1}A1§:”NAMHYAR .A
AGED 52 YEARS
NO. ‘::79,»..6’r:~;” Mam

__”A’ BLGCK, VZJAYANAGAR III STAGE
MYSORE3 5’70 017

}:§’:*m~{;A12AJU
«’ A-€L}ED 46 YEARS

f_ ‘ u …s:./ct} BASAVE GOWDA
ANNECHIKANAHALLI

K. R. PET
MYSORE

‘ ~MYSQR£’€’=

hf?

SR1 K CHANDRAN

S] O LATE KAILASHAM
AGED 54 YEARS

NO. 1942/C HINKAL
BQGADI MASH ROAI3
VIJAYANAGAR II} STAGE
MYSORE 5’30 01′?’

SR} GOWRU NIGAM

S} O VFJAYVARBAN NEGAM
AGED 41 YEARS

HINKAL VILLAGE

MYSQRE

SR; H ZUBIAR
Sm VIHAMSA
AGED 29 YEARS
NO.1948]B, HINKAL
BOGADI MAIN ROAD

VIJAYANAGAR III SFAGF:; :f’ _

MYSORE %5?(§ Gi>*i.;;;:,; ‘ ”

SR1 M I~?.–AIviESi~I ” .j’-~ ‘
S/O B.MF’Jf}A{AH ‘ ‘
AGED 42 YEARS . _
NC).22?[2, 1ST.,M;AIvN ROAE)
Gm«::;;LAM 1: srgsrg

.sf<«1.A;r¢s§:g§£'§:)c:€{3J1:,":si(}AM

S~,I 01.x«*1JAY.i%vfA;2::HAN NEGAM
AGED 34. YEi§~_E2S
R/o"'HmKAL' WLLAGE

._MYs«:mg' 2.

” “f%ICHA NEGAM

– 1:8./<3 'VIJAY VARDHAN NIGAM

' AGED 32 YEARS

-we HINKAL VILLAGE

1′ MYSORE –

[11

SMT GOWRAMMA

12

13

14

W] 0 BLCHANDRAN
AGED 52 YEARS
950.1942/C HINKAL
BOGADI MAIN ROAB
VIJAYANAGAR Hi SYAGE
MYSORE 570 017

SRE C VENKATRAJU

S] O LATE CHIKKAMADAPPA
AGED 48 YEARS

#2′?3, VIJAYANAGAR IV STAGE

MYSORE _

SMT N SUMEETI-IRA
W/OM.C.VINOD KUMAR,
AGED 25 YEARS V ‘

3 12772, YADAVACRRE w'”1~.a”A1N: ; u

MYSORE

Sm LOI{AMAN~{

w; 0 H.\f; “E3fi,SA!¥;VAi3éEa;}U”‘
AGED :35 YEARS; —

H1NKALa;:L;,AGE,’
HINKAL ‘ ‘ V.

MYSORE

. ‘_ SR§V_K§’.:GAi\¥§3S¥i H’ ” 11111 ‘A \\
‘3; 0 m’r=–r:;= KIHSHNAPPA

A(2%E!’) 3.3 YEAR’S__

” 2% 1-,.{_3″‘Fi;t«-i”2’v12’?«,I}’_SI ROAD,

vH~:A¥A§<'N1wAi2:"
MY::3.§.)RE.- . '

_ "SR2 ASK,I:E_R ANTONY PF,RE£RA
* ,$fC+_LATE PEREERA
"'A<:;E:D"_58 YEARS

' #'.439',' A] 1 BLOCK,

VI.§}'AYANAGAR 11: STAGE,
._4 " -MYSQRE

SR1 NALINAKS-Hi
W/O V NARAYAN N COORG

42';

AGED 45 YI:?1’sF3S

KAN NA Nf&GALA VILLAGE,
AM HONDI HANGSI POST
SOUTH COORG

13 SR1 SHIVALINGAPPA
3/0 BASAVALING-APPA
AGEB 40 YEARS
RAVANBOOR :

PZRIYAPATTANA ‘I’ALU§{
MYSORE

19 SM’? M L RATHNA
D] O PALAVATHAMMELA
AGED 50 EYARS
K.R.NACrAR, MIRILIGRAMA
MYSORE

20 SKI PAL K REGO
S/O SARI D.C.REGC) _ .
AGED 45 YEARS _ V

#439,
A] 1, BLOCK, ViJAYANAGAl§ _
MYsoRE’g_* ‘

21 SRIBE’_F’I’AIAH
_ s/ 0.. §;{£AR’E{)ASAIAIrI V _
‘*CHl’}€.I{E£3OWDANA 1§:’c3’pPAL
SCHOOL Rem,
%Hi’;,wAI,;s« ..1é1<:»I5L_1" 'V,
MYEEQRE « ,. APPELLANTS

'(By_M/ S. ';é;:3Hv:;j§;':<iARANA§:;A:.L1 ASSOCIATES, Amfs. }

" I\zfi"SORE {JRBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

T -REP BY ITS C{}MMiSSIONE}R,

n JANSI RANI LAKSHMI 135.1

f

" ROAD, MYSORE 573 092

/

5

2 ‘THE SIPECSAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MYSORE URBAN LAND AU’I’¥~IORI’§’Y
MYSORE

3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY {TS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT 09* URBAN DEVELOPMENT
EVI.S.BUiLDING 2 = ~ , ‘- _
BANGALORE 560 001 RE’S_F?QNF)EN°7¥’_S =

(By S11: P S MANJ{§NA’1″i~§,ADV. F'{)R C/R21:&.»:R_-A2) , ”

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED VU;.._é*«.4 oi?’ vf’I’I?~iE ‘:, r§i’AT;éK;A ”

men COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET As{.1j:};a frHE”RDER imssm)
IN we WRIT PETITION NQ.2§5.§9; 290$-.r;,t\m”..:) 27/0642007.

‘I’§ilS w.A. COMING ON FC>R HEAMNG THIS
ms: MANJULA CHELLLIR, .1, D33LIéJEi2_Ei) TH.E’mLL0w1NG:

Though’ this fljr preiiminajy hearing, by
the consent of was heard on merits and is
being dispcgsed. of aécaifiihglj.

V. §”,3m;-{:’vA’iearned counsel for the appellant and so also

the reé;:>_d:.1(ié§ti’t 7_*v_V.V___

–V 3. §’:E§;a:%;i§)j: i:i Vdispute that garelimixlary notification Came to

.1 Q11 1. 1992 for an entjre extent of 137 acres of iand

final notification dated 20. 1.1993 unfier the

‘ Urbaxl Deveiopmem: Authorifies Act, 1988. So far as

«. , j, .Rs:-,J* . ‘

8

6. In that View of the matter, the iearned Singie J
justzifiecl in saying as observed at para 13 of the _
aypeflant Nos. 2 to 21 who could not lflgve beau ‘»
record, as no document to establish
right, interest or title in ths pr:jp¢.rty. ‘ 1.’i1€yV
chalienge the acquisition proceedillgg’ Skgérs V.’after the
prelimirzary notification. frciil we not find
any gmund to interfere with the learned

Siilgle Judge.

7. Accordizzglyggthé1:3.pp€va1′–is dis’mis’sed.

Sd/-

Judge

Sd/– ”

Judge