iNTEE}HGHCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, zomfj
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. _NAGAMi)P£'A}§T_'D}XS E
WRIT 1'_,E,.,.,._'l'IT10N Nos.1393.139*IL«'=E? Ag9'EE[LB~F4$.i
BETWEEN:
93
. Sri NARASEGOWDA @_1§ARAES'_AijAH~~.,i" 1'
AGED 65 YEARS %
S/O LATE TI§'IB/i3'iiE{;QwDfx"
S:-i CH_iKKNfH}MMEGOWDA A
AGED70 YEARS»
s/0 LATE m{M'M_EGovQ'DAV
s:{1LAEsEMANA"' DDDDD S' "-
AGED 3: YEARS
"'.~:,_;.O' :\.g§g»vCHE'LUVEGOwDA
ES;;EC.NVAGSARDAJA
AGED"--.33 YEARS
S/0 LATE CHELUVEGOWDA
NF~
J.
5. Smt LAKSI-IMAMMA
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA
ALL FROM SL.N0.I TO 5 ARE
R/O LALITHADRIPURA
INDIRANAGAR POST,
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,~~~
MYSORE DESTRICT.
(By Sri. S.N.ASHWATHANARAYA}§I, AD"v._.)"'--
1. MYSORE URBAN.DEvE£.O1é1\'..zE1:g;~;§A' »
AUTHORITY
MYSORE, REP.BY XTS (:O;x4zv11S-s.1ONER. AV S'
2. KARNATAKA ROUSE
BUILDTNG. S(..}:'(V3'1EV'FY (REGD)
NETH'AJIN'AGAR;~-AL ANAHALLI, TNARASIPUR
ROAD,'-MY-SOREV ¥}._Q.RE,B.B.Y--'ITS SECRETARY.
3. STATE OF4'i{A_RN.A'TAKA"'
RER.BY.ITs SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT
' .. UR.1?;A;»fiDEVELOP1vIENT DEPARTMENT
w___V(By Sri.P..S__§VIANJ'UNATH, ADV., FOR R-1
. D;.A1VIBED.KAR ROAD, BANGALORE £1.
4}." ~TEE~T'A:3i.sIL2jAR
MYSOR.ETALU1<, MYSORE.
' A RESPONDENTS
, ‘Srti. AMAR KUMAR T.S., ADV., FOR M/S LAWYERS INC
« .A1_3;vs., FOR R–2
R-3 & 4 ARE SERVED)
Ui”‘””
;:.° PE’TIi’I.Q[=Ei3l5gS« .
THESE WRIT FETITIONS ARE FILED UNTHDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF.’IN:D.IAVV
WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED A.I.,.”
LETTER DT.17.07.()7 AS AT ANNEXUREWG OF R3 AND ETC”. 1 *
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON Fokttiiiieiiin {No “V 2
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THEVAFOLLOVWIN-G; v .
ORDEE I I A A
in this writ petition the petitioiiers» have in
the nature of certiorari to qt:£:1sh¢_the_«order passed by
the third respondent as per Aniiextfirefx sale deed dated’
29.2.2008 as per ;Ann;e§:ure–:I, and”Ior”taA:iw:iit .ofpfi;nandarnus to hand
over 6 Acres 8 I to the petitioners.
2. i”i?etitione5siit1re”the owners of 6 Acres 8 Guntas in
Sy.N0iL5p:8i/1i’situated”at Iialitvadiipura village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore
The«.pres:pondents acquired the land in question and other
leindsi.uiider’t;”_preIpiiriina1’y notification dated 15.7.1997 and the final
‘Vnotifici:§1tioii.«Vd.ated ft8.1.2002 under the provisions of Karnataka
I 2’ :Urhari-Deveiopment Act. The possession of the land was taken over
i
on 22.7.2005. Petitioners have withdrawn the award _
have agitated for higher compensation.
3. The Government by its order dated..v_
Annexure~C denotified to an extent of l237Acres in several s’urv’ey'<
numbers situated at Lalitadri Vi1lage"'acT§'uired "under
Urban Development Authorities an veittent of 99
Acres was allotted in favour of 2second:'refsboxtdetit.}ffS.ociety. Second
respondent — Socievty"::noEticeci_ that and 68/1
measuring 8 .vvithinviithe"'area allotted to them.
Thereforegtheu'second regqiueisted to allot these lands in
their favor. under the impugned order
dated 17t7._2007gaveV app:rova.1 transfer of sy.no.5-4 and 68/1 in
favour second respon'dent — Society. Consequently, the first
re:-po"ngd_ent e'xecuted_a_j.sale deed in favour of the second respondent
2 if " as per 'iirkggrieved by this the petitioners are before this
-. ~ .. ucourt.
aw
_. under: , .
4. Admittedly, on 15.7.1997 sy.no.68/I was notified in
the preliminary notification as per Annexure~«A. The final
notification was issued on 18.’l.2002 as per Annexure–B.f”It’fis”‘p_
further admitted that under a notification dated 2o.i0.2.eo5 alslherl ~
Annexure–O, the possession of the lands had been .–Fj.1rtl;e’r;_
the petitioners admit that they have received if
are agitating for higher compensation: this stage, the
petition is filed contending thatthere ‘is-dilylersion_of l£’.nd..!.’lS6 and
the first respondent has enrichedhy identical issue
came up for cons.ideratioji” u Court in
NORTHERS _:(3l,A’;i3é'”=INI)USTRIES VS. JASWANT
SINGH Arno 335 wherein it is held as
“;..9i.:L0olcing to the facts of the present case and
._ ._Re;s,oondents 1~5, the High Court was not at
jiistitieiilllin ignoring the delay and laches and granting
” re-lief them. As already noticed, Respondents 1–5
apiaroached the High Court by filing writ petition almost
6″”
after a period of 17 years after finalization of the
acquisition proceedings. They accepted
compensation amount as per the award and sought for –1~
enhancement of the compensation’ amount””‘wit_h0iitt
challenging the notification issued tinder’ cSections”4_:anii
6. Having sought for enhancenfient of compensation
they filed writ petition even three llyearseafter the appeals
were disposed of by tire ‘the matter of
enhancement of-compe;1satio:n. ifhfere is ntfexplanation
whatsoever for inordinate delay inmfiling the writ
petitions.’ Merelyilhecausei*–full’ enhanced compensation
amount’*–w_a;s’ no;-fl,’;d £’0V”l’tT?€ respondents, that itself was
g.roundl’toV._.condoqne the delay and laches in filing the
. W.writgpetit:’on;–t In our view, the High Court was also not
H 2 i’rig’ht’Vinlfordering restoration of land to the respondents
on theqgroiund that the land acquired was not used for
” ‘whichlit had been acquired. It is a well–settled position in
law that after passing the award and taking possession
under Section 16 ofthe Act, the acquired land vests
the Government free from on encumbrances. Even;”ij”‘the_* –. ‘ .;.
land is not used for the purpose for which it 4.
the landowner does not get any right to-ask:foir=,reves{irtgV Ah
the land in him and to forV”;~estitntionV:”‘l”Qf
possession…”. V l l
5. In view of las7vNdeelarec§:_b~}§$,~..ghve:Supreme Court the
petitioners are not .3Il[it1CC1_v’i,G:..q?i1C’§~{i§Il order at
Annexure-G the Writ
petitions are_liabwle toV «. V V l
6. the petitioners relying on a
judgment of the l-Su’pi’e1vne.:Coiit-=t.:in.JBONDU RAMASWAMY AND
_ oTH1§tg’s’ Vs. VB’;stt§G’ALCoRE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND’ViC)T1:§Ii£§”,R.§:§’;'(20E0) 7 sec: 129 contend that the petitioners are
eittit1’eti%«for= e’_ertain”benefits for allotment of certain plots. If that is
_ so, thuepetivtiotters are at liberty to approach the respondents seeking
‘A ll * tb:enef.i._t ofvvallotrnent of certain sites as per the law laid down by the
CM
Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case. If
representation is given, then the respondents to consideréhe’ _
accordance with the iaw declared by the Supfeme Court» if.
With the above observation, ‘the wfit._ pctitionsd’ én’e..V_Vherebyd
dismissed.
LRS/0309,2Q.I.0r’Vx”T