in THE men COURT op KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATES THIS THE 29TH may 0:9 MAY 2099 1.
BEFORE "~ % "
THE I~lON'13LE MR. JUSTICE RAM MQ;a1gm:.Rg:3ibY '
W.P.N€).16859I2Q3"Y iL.r3~REs). f' -A V V
BETWEEN:
SRLKRISHNA
s/0 SATYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS _ .
RESIDING AT "GURURAGHAVrg;.Ni.DRA['NILAYA"
NEAR WATER TANK " ' t %
VINOBA NAGAR _ V I
SPHMOGA g A V L .. PETITXONER
(av M;3.i;A\;gf.'g$'s{:>c:é:::?';3i}r:3.)~ A
ANDE- _
3. STATE 911* R?Ai2NATAKA
REPRESEHTED BYVITS PREINCIPAL
; ;=3EQRE'rAR,Y'T0 GOVERNMENT
""~:R"§:§n::§uE Di:??3£}{'FMENT
_ v:HAsA.souBHA
2 . 1334.1-3.Rv..A'i-.4BEaKAR VEEDHI
B&P§'{}AL{}.R'E _ 1
2.--.frH§;- D.EP1 5?Y COMMiSS!ONER,
V SHEMOGA msrarcrr
'A J SHEMOGA
V' 'f*AHs1mAR
SEIMOGA TALUK
SHIMOGA UK
4. COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCEL
SHIMOGA
5. SUB~R'EGIS'I'RAR
SHIMOGATALUK
SHIMOGA. .:....T1§:EsPo.;mE1'e*rs3
(SRI.R.DEVADAS, AGA, FOR' R-3 aga-':s'--.ANDJV}""-AA "
SRI.B.B.BAJANTRI, AGA F0-R ¥R;4) " ~
THIS W.P. IS FILED UN-EVER ART1c'LE$.%22{§ AND 227
012' THE c3oNs'rrrUTfI(>N C_5F Imma, 'PRAYING TO QUASH~
THE ENDORSEMENT '£:'r.1.23_.::;:.20o"';',f !SSUED BY THE R4,
REJEC'I'IN'G THE REQUEST: A-LLOTMENT OF
ALTERNATE SITE TQ="1"HE;PE;*1fi<1fI0zxaE:.R'=IN LIEU OF SITE
No.49, MEAS'URi 'f€G =30:;F1EE'I'VX --?'0._.I.§'£1E'F IN KALLAHALLI
VILLAGE, ,KAS}?S;RA s~§0BLz., :=.;;i~;xf;vx0GA TALUQ, ACQUIRED
FOR SHIMOGA Mu-NCI.PAL '{3r3UNcIL, AS CONTAINED
IN ANN-P. - ~ ._
T1113 WP, FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY,~fFHE CQUR'F.I'vi'ADE THE) FQLLOWING:
ORDER
* –v’If1′:e:v’4 §”e$;itioner claims that his grand father by
H ‘:fiéimeV.VR%;ém%;3é£ijandrappa purchased 2 gtmtas of land in
Sy4;”No:4t_9.v {ff Kaliahalii Village, Kasaba Hobfi, Shimoga
V’ AA;V9TiSt1’ict under a registered sale deed dated 17.12.196&
appears that during the year 196-4~65, thei: lands in
Survey No.49 inclzxding the property conveyed to the
petit;°:oner’s grané fathcar was acquirad by the City
irk
3
Munieipa§ Council, Shimoga (for short ‘ CMC’) for
forming of the residential lay out called as ‘Vino¥:)az1agar’
by issuing notice of acquisition to the vendor of tf1e.sa.id
land without notice to’ the petitioner’s grand “is
the assertion of the petitioner that
khatha was changed to the 1;a1:n_e cj:f
grand father in the record.__. of Afigliz, ” L.
executed on 8.1.1998 property in
favour of the petifiorxef; _It«.V_is the petitioner’s
graI1(vi ‘fai;i*ae.1:if. and ix} the year 2001-
20{)Q.’,%V”~.§x%heV11* came to knew of the
acqxfisitiofi approaeheé: the CMC to allot an alternative
5T2~’1e’a’fourtIi”fespondent – CMC when ealied upon
to fmnish documents, by notice dated
9.9e2oe2,e%:sas responded to on 17.9.2002 furnishing the
.doe”ae1e}1ts as we]: as afiiciavit, followed by a
” ‘esveoreespondenee dated 29.10.2002. It is asserted that
–(she fourth resgcmdent an 16.11.2002 addressed a letter
te the second respenéeat “Deputy Commissioner
ix
foiwavding all the documents furnishedjthe
petitioner for orders in the matter of
aiternative site. on 17.2.2oo3A,~e1¢ r§1%m;d %’h ‘V.-‘.1jexs’po:ndent’ no
sought certain information as to €z.rhethe1°
was paid to the petitionet a;:8.”~aeqtfisitio:1 “property,
as also the market.jraIue””o§’i_:tfie.._pro;}>e1-‘ty.~’E The ffth
respondent, it is intimated the
fourth value of the
property: of the petitioner that
on ~» CMC intimated
the {deputy Commissioner about
the_:feso1£1ti.(§I1Vd£1ted 3.5.2.2002 vide Subject No.1 1(5) to
site atdflakbednced rate of R325/~– per sq.ft. in
éthepetitioner followed by a recommendation
‘dated_.3..?}”.:§’.2(§O3 of the second respondent to the Director
of Municipal Admmisncation, who in turn addressed a
dated 6.5.2003 to the Urban Qevelopment
V. _ fiepartxnent to fix. the value of the altenxafive site to be
ailotted at Rs.25,QGG/- as the petitioner had not
M
received the compensation on acquisition of ,.
and as has been done to persoriel ‘ ”
eircumstanced. In the rneeg11whi}e’,” ” e lwltseisterit .
Commissioner by letter dated:’»9.6:;20{)E$;».eoefiteitie<i."t31at
the award was made in'l'm?Qur oi' one
received Rs.8,893.l2 as 1.2007,
the fourth Iespontietlt « _ intimated the
Assistant possible to {ix
the was confirmed
by dated 20.2.2007. The
rejeotiorx of' emuest to allot an alternate
site by: .:."-dated 23.3.2007 of the fourth
–“V’CZafi..”.(3,’ has led to the filing of this petition
‘ ~ endorsement and for a mandamus to
lldilfeot _fo11rth fespondent to allot alternative site in
favomeof the petitioner or in the alternative to keep one
“ii vacant without allotting to anybody in the layout
‘V_’i’o:*zned by the fourth respozzdent. UK
2. The petitien is not opposed by f1lix1g.4jst§’1_temen'{
of objections. A 4′ A ‘ A
3. This Court on 2.4.2§)0§::A4ha§in§,_.’d§fc~r:fieeV.,fixe e
\,f’
fourth respondent to,sta1Ve_ .1;_he fate of»
the resolution in Subject uNe,V 11.(6) 3.132.200? to
allot an alternative fler ~-..;.ef:;it.iener, the iearned
counsel subnlits ‘eejected the said
I”*é)S()I1.1ti0I”:’._V(:>.:v1’1″«f;”.:_’I §.f.”‘__.’ offend Section 7
of that allotment of a
site must. 1e–t3{on.
_ _V 4. Ti:eV_Viea:f;1e£1. eeiinsel for the petitioner reiterates
aeermente’V ‘Sefeut in the Writ Petition. it is the
of the petitioner that the revenue
having failed to make a mutation entry
the khatha of the property into the name of
peti1:ioner’e grand father, led to the payment of
V. _.-eemmnsatiorz to the vendor of the land, without notice
to the petitienere gand father and therefore, had no
M
knowledge of the acquisition till after the deatiiof the
petitio13.er’s grand father.
5. This appears to be the sheet ‘ 1.
of the petitioner to claim a
alternative site.
6. It is no lavetments of the
petition discloses t21e.t..o1f;e his brothers
301111113′ _ in favour of
petitieI}Vet”s.V Kfiariyappa receiveci
come_eneetie11V >»ae qtt1is-ition of the entire land in
Smvejf :’1;get:i.tioner’s wand father was not
vigijerxt ané ::not exercise his right over the
:i11;t1in:o§It1′:1-]e”*~«,prope1ty 321 question or object to the
~.ee§:guieit’ie::1g’§;;it’fis tee Late in the day for the petitioner to
eofztei:-td. he had no knowledge of the acquisition
.. “air: lies a vested right to allounent of an alternative
The feet remains that the compensation was made
‘V H “over to the vendor of the petitioner’s grand father and if
0%
that is so, the 1:3 lies between the petitione4r..VVzé1E_i;d_V_ the
vendor of his grand father and the
claim a legal right to allotment ofan alter1iz§i:ive”‘eite. u ‘V
7 . Subsection (2) ofTVSectiox1 r/ V
Karnataka M1nfloipaHfies[G’uf€:anee as L¥.(:e¥;S;”:, of
Copies and Misc::1:ia1j1eoi1e _V’ }V”.t?g>’s’f2f’isions)’Vv”Riju1es, 1966
‘ mandates the or auction any
immovable of”‘A;V.o:’i”I1o\I:’ea1€);1e”‘: way of pubiic
auction ‘b},r Bench of this court in
mn.¢…A;». sémuw of kamataka (1992 KLJ 24-5;
in thet no exception can be taken to
the -d.ecision: of’ Government in rejecting the
. V. .roso11l1i§io:’1A~.gf1ate{:i%§Lé12.2002 of the fourth respondent –
~ aiternative site to the petitioner at the
rate of /-« per sq.ft. In the circumstances of the
..oa$o, ‘fl.1e impugled endorsement ziieciining to aliot to
‘ *.:£1″1o ‘:petitioz1er a site as an altemative and in lieu of the
44 e iané acquired, cannot be fund faint with.
8. in the result, the Writ Petition is witl1;>’i,:1.fmeI’it
and is accordingly rejected. it is made
petitioner is otherwise: entitled to an atletfix-3Iit~.§>f Aa >
in the layout: the respondent: CMQ; fi1hajz.,.c0Ii’si.é.;cfr~:A :_!:he ‘
pe1:iti(mer’s case. ‘ ”
sa/q_
Judge
RS/*