~-------A --- ------------------- -------nu. ---. u--.....-.-y..------ - ----aw--u --- -.-.-...v-.-.----r--
!_i..0*-.!Q.l.|.:E
1
WP9353.07
|i
ll 'PHI HIGH OOURT OI' KARIATAIIA A1'
A "ii "F-ii' 'i""" 1'='=
3%'
mm nownm HR. ammo: D.v.
W111 Pe1g'Q'm_.L_3..N -9
sm THIMMEGOWDA ' _V
sjo
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, .
SR1 sRmIvAsA' _ _
3/0 LATE VENKA'T'Af'F'A__
AGED A13ou'r 43yDA3s,__ ;
sR1sHWAR'AM
s/o4.DA1'D;vr;NxATA:?PA _. ;
AGED Aaouui 40"Y_jEA'Rs, _ "
~
S/Q L*"53TE.VV'E"K5'm.PP5 '
AGED ABQUT 38
Sm ESHWAR' »--
s/o"~1.A'rI_«: VEN KATAPPA
' " ACAED 'ADQUT 3.5 YEARS,
_ +:1NAx_A1_. WLLAGE,
§ :5
-..'
I _ ,1' _
q "'4ABA_HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK
LL .5; J"-1'5'-F' BY THE-!R
n gino-
GPA HOLDER - s K SRINIVAS
.~S!O'..--KE.'*.'.PAlAH.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
we HOUSE 240.34.
:::-A
"'A AND B BLOCK,
RAlJAvnlgHlLIAMAr1AD DA V 9'13'
lVll'll'|.l\ I'-'"1 '-r'\.'lrII\ I-J«I'I.lJI'I I
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA
MYSORE . ..-.IT!0!\!F-R-'.3
im Sri. S ' 'ii.,i
L)
:
"I
u
6
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY' SECRET' RT TO
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPAR'I'MEN'l' ' ._
M.S.BUILDING. BANGALORE-01 .-- " -- "
2 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMT
URBAN LAND CEILING
MYSORE _
"i:)NERT j;
3 THE TAHASILDAR
MYSORE TALUK__
MYSORE -- 'RESPONDENTS
[By Sn’. ‘RJK :Hc:§:+z锣z§£ R1-R3]
THIS wR1TPE’n:TieN is 1~.*jLé:I:1. UNE?Ei? ARTICLES 225 85 227
es’ THE CC_.!!\!$Ifl’L!TI€.)!~!3C.iF 1:~:p1;m ‘V eaavzue T0 QUAS1-1 THE
NOPIFICATEON %,_n.T.2a.,:’s_,1″9ao preonucmn A1’ ANN-C AND
!*!(‘!I’IFICA:’TIO!*I”‘»LY!’.’22.4L”133’30’—-AS ?EI’-3 A.!\!!\!-D AS ABATE-D AND
ETC… %%%% L A
THIS AVIV-5E.–‘”:f!’I’lv'(L’N ‘c:6’isa1N<3.'oN FOR HEARING. THIS DAY. THE
COURT WE' :-
A , QB_Q_l.!5_.lS
V ifWr*iI.:A pefifiehers claim to be persons who are legal
frhimmegowda, flrst petitioner being son and
7′ Ll. IIGI DUEL’ \.aJ.l.I..I.\.«I.«|.\.o1J. Us vsau I’ an
1 brether of Thimmegowda who it is furule’ % 1′ claim’ ‘ ed had
a declaration in ForIn–1 in terms of section — 6 of the
Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act, 1976 [for short
‘1976 Act’; now repealed.
/’
V
/.
‘I-Irwin: turn uu-ans’-uuc-nu-u manque. -~—rm”.-i-.. –. .– -..-.-…_- –…_-.. -_.____- __ __ _________ ____ ___
3
It is claimed that the authorities under tne;1976 Act
purporting to act on the declaration that ‘:a.1e.–1 by
I-‘VJ-‘AI I IIJLIJLLLU-fluII4-II ‘IQ’, J
lafn immniah (in himmgangrdn-
.3112. r\’_….’.._.t.’..
residing at No.’2’26/’8, as C-res, Je,
Mohalla, Mysore – 12, issued a
28.3.1980 under section tlte= tact [copy at
Annexure-C] maieetiiis tlie _vacant land held by
eves-.s’s’*wof– eemfio rise t.a_m_i it use been
a Vululi-M:\r’ ‘ ~ – -yo-u–E’ _._.V _ _ _. _
_ .. .. …£’
i11dicat6<i.'t.9;;ai§e'tiI1 Jr-:e.5 11 stnt.;~e. vluagc en -xteut e.
8,599,_8O*'Vs;i-.– indicated to be excess.
3. “VIt to on this dee””””‘e”1 and
pebneeties, the eesgpetem authority had also issued
” ‘ Npuneeeen dated 22.4.1930 [copy at Annexune–D]
% 10(3) of the 1976 Act declaring the excess
:’
3
1.
5.’
3
3′
E
n
D
‘P
3″
b
n
n
ms nu navy}; I rid indi- f
}ll\l’Id’Il’1″‘
‘ Iv uuu \l-ll 1: Juan: a.-cu-.-we-av–…
s.’fll.aa.l.-.I|’.. vI’J..|..|.\.«.I.1 wan
E
c
AA in Amaiexme-C, the earlier N”ot:i1’ication.
children of either Thimmegowda or his ‘brother
Venkatappa is that the excess land measuring 2 acres 5
%/
V’ 4.1.- 4-
; 01 In
WPQSSLLQT
1|
-1- –.. _
guntas in Sy. No.5 of I-Iinkal Village had their
possession; that the petitioners or their in _
.n.I….1— AC ‘ . ‘hut
1976 Act determining ut oess11,e;tt::a_tt»eut.,..tp§-s.g-5
filed a revision petition before
having made a request notto
take the excess land
, ,.
—-‘-. .J
du. …g L… pends
having iapfireachted thi” eotirt by
filing or 1993; that these writ
petitions of in terms of the order dated
25.3. Government — the revisional
, within a period of six months and not to
of the land from them during the
of the revision; that thereafter the revisions]
2 ~ ‘i9.tt_ho1’ity 11.5 n_t. disposed of the matter to the knowledge
4..{
proceedings under the 1976 Act were still pending and in
the meanwhile the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act,
2%
ad rmes.i-ned. the legality of the iunder
uaI:uu..__ ‘
__._-_- __ -.__–_..__-_._– _– .’.__-_
I13′:-In-nu turn cur-nun:-nu;-n-u-1 unmyqu — .. ~..-.-.._- -.—-.- -__._-.— —- -__..___—
9 indicating that such request in ‘i’ any.
2
D
1976 itself was repealed by Central Act 15 of 1999 with
effect from 22.3.1999 and in terms of all
not (1! nrnneerh V
or ‘ .
1…… ……,, ,.–__…_.g_
proceedings in respect of *f *'”””f*
their predecessors mevitehly ‘He.-toess
extent of 3,599.30 sq. musgjn in
posession of the petitiorterg the petitioners have
a — –.–__ – – –.._ -_.. _ _,
.m. ih_.d owners i_,…po_s–session”of extent also
—>-«a~ 1976 A-t 1— “pm; tn…-+
after the t;
in had approached
requesting them to change the
revenue but the revenue authorities
1”…
= Village measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of land
possible for the reason that the records indicated
extent of land had already been acquired under
M” “f “m 19′}’6 Afl and therefere the entries
cannot be altered.
h_a.vi.ng npgeeft
.19-Pcuu ‘1’, j
–: ‘wan. ‘rd — -nun -. mu- ..– –
6 ‘.3.’P9=..53.Q’.7
5. Petitioners have sought for quashingfof thi
endorsement as also the Notifications at & D
nn I-I-an nmnrn can 1′ at in ha-.1″g_n_ f Qe_(\,1’i
U13 I.-..l.J.\..-I tIL\.r.I.I.|.1IaI.J \~|..u.as an
an
I
I
I
I
1
i.
1
I
_.-‘.4-.-…….
Act, pending proceedings lapses _t’:ie:e;_us,–._
C 8; D are of no avail .in._1aw4′ with.
having continued to extentof
3,599.30 sq. mu’s,’,;::(:5f. No.5 I-linkal Village,
necessary its the authorities to
compel cum ‘1
the Petitianéité-: I
6. “«Petitionerstj~have’*- relied upon the endorsement
dated 1i§*.7p;2O(}6A”v[copy at Annexure-E] issued by the
it – _ “Comtnis’sioner of Mysore District indicating that
v \-up-.4. .3 …-.-
1g’_}~t_I;e pendency of the proceedings under the
……..1:._ Anti I-nun In!-n fQ.vfi
T”pcI:unJ.fi nu. new ….w
n 3 that no mahazar, had taken place in respect of
*»esoess extent declared as contemplated under section
E 10(5) of the 1976 Act; that an earlier endorsement dated
9.11905 n lso been issued by the Special Land
:51 V: -y——- u–..w–_
. , ,,, ,1 _u_¢ An. Om-” .1′ ling…-.. I T-ulnar! I’\nunInn_r_p_Anf
f§§T
111 ‘ U1 Ni, SUI. U U: uI:|..u wvv uavr
cru-
Itéénun wu u–1-uu-w.-.–‘-:- un-
factual ‘posit? 1 in 1- s
7
7
Authority, Mysore, [copy at Annexure-F] that in
respect of the information sought for from to
flu-nil-n fl-an nnru alfinn AI’ land
l.Ll.ll.J.l.S:u.l. I-.u.\.a I’4Iu\.i|..I.:\:’LulIJ1L vs. Ann; 11′} ‘ Jo t~–‘r,’_g”‘.Vaan.n.r~a.-was-.-.
measuring :2 acres 5 gmitas,1,the,re(:o1xis._do’not__’ ii
such acquisition of the
Thimmegowda and vemcatapfpaek who said to be in
physical possessiori«.oi’- _
7. of Sri. Nagaraja,
learned has veiy vehemently
section 4 ing Act, all pending proceed!’ 8
under _:’19.’7.6 iAot”:Vlapses and further the petitioners
_ possession of the extent of 8,599.80
–V._ .9…’ V’
mt _…r_:ess in Sy. No.5 and admittedly such
_. .. 44-. A
“‘ “””” eufi ei’1uGI”‘u6″”‘su63′.ll’.c’%
A4′
1
AA issued by the revenue authorities and the other civic
*»aiiitho1ities, the endorsement at Annexure-G as well as
F Notifications at Annexures- C & D should be quashed and
direcfi
unsra :-
i . I to the resmnde- 1.: n_t to ixhpiement the
u.rI.rI-an-«mu – — -ml—–….–. _ .. _ V
A/
3′
Illluannwnuwruwnnu urn: ——.’……__- .
‘Authorir; indicates they
8 WP9353.0’7
further follow up action pursuant to Annexures C 8: D
etc…
a. writ petition had been admitted. as
issued to the respondents. ”
IJUIIIIIL DIA’4l.I-‘U-1.1.: ‘ ‘en. .._ .. , __.
L’ N V?
tu stuteinents % not
statement are all filed.
consistent, particularly,’ it to the aspect as to
whether the; had taken over
;xessess§’onT.o£: and determined by
1′ the 1976 Act.
Pnuv nuns: ; -er .__
I—1-9;’
While one statetaent:’i’says that the authorities had u:uLci’i
mesessionpof later on they have come up with a
. it ” _ had not taken possession. Even the
‘V V I’-V’V’-i*3v?§*’e!=%-=”‘?V-3-°n~~ i.,s1.I.-_ by the Mysore Urban Development
‘.\.y.|lI.l.I.’ ,’l I-.’\I&s.1V\-I Vg.-u
are not initiated aequi.-;it.i…n
.. , proceedings against the subject land of 2 acres 5 guntas
‘ Sy. No.5 of Hinkal Village.
9. Sri. Hatti, learned Government Pleader submits that
in terms of the latest information made available to the
A .:u_1 eee. ‘additional.
LUIJKI LII’ lflfltlllfil-\llHI\H I1IUI”I \-\glU!I’i<l""|.Il' I\1-uuu-u.nn.n ru-urn \..uun- we n.–.n.'.-.
'' -' ITUIVIT
….i/
V
'I-VIII': 'urn IIl'Il\l'll'IIl.l'IuI-I .-q-u. -.-.y_A."…';_ -. ._…._- __-___ __.____ ________ __ ______ ___V_ W___
9 — i w1=9353.o7
counsel, it appears that Sy. No.5 measures 3"~–.acI'es 5
guntas in all and in this survey is a
d "r 1*'-"a'u"fifie t* "".'f"?* '""
terms of Annexure-R 1.
10. Though records tow.
Hatti, learned not in a position to
place before;t_i1e or proceeding
of any land which was
11. \.KH.r.J.1-_’r_lVie_ is very clear and without any
?
5
2
anibigiiity, faetuai position is defir-duet, Lzut clear. . ie
F
‘ ifnot as to whether the authorities had in fact
H ” iiifioeeeeeion of the land or had not taken possession
.. are blowing hot an cold and coming up with
n If the matter is
ukyvnauauuxua Elias!-In-a’ -2 – – …..- a__ _
-Ina. I-‘In
to be viewed with degree of eei°’u:3″sncss, “1115 or u…
other aflidavit filed by the authorltiee is clearly a mis-
statement or incorrect statement so made even in the
V
lorry
»ynu:I.l.u. 8l.a__
–_ __-_. _– ….— ——r— —v- —-.-‘u-.-…-.–_ …. —-.§___ .__ -._
‘«_-‘<iuuum-u. new-o In-V -.-:- —-
whovere can the legal heirs ete., who can claim uuue – tu
10 '-'u'P9353.G7
affldavit amounting to perjury. But, the fact of thei.matter
is that such affldavits filed by the
do not necessarily correlate tfnei not, i
inspire the confidence of the cotnt, act on
and information given by perflcularly, to
pass orders in writ' " _
12. While. owner related
to Sy. No.5, 6 and 205/4,
1 uegf sowglelt for in this v’n_…'”‘ “I.u.I.\.u.I is any in res”-“,.wt of
Sy. z’No’.5 extent of excess determina’ tion’ ,
namely, 43,599.80
jolt ‘is clear ‘as to what is the precise
– h ” lginiiof the pe.._ti-n,.rs _o declarant and
___ . -…. .1 4….
1……
C
.. declarant, as to whether the original declarant
it rests in fact the owner of the land which was the subject
matter of declaration. Even in terms of the law declared
by Lug nnn nan i nrnoeedina w_l_’1_1(_311 1131;: Q91;
vv |..a|-I. log 1:-uuu–so-ngg run —‘—-‘—-_._D–
__..1’I_- I-..
culminated under the Act neeessamy see ‘:1 «
«*2
‘I-\I|Unl ‘Jr I’IlllIl’l’l|Il’lI’Il’l unsung wu –
direcizions for alter-irg the erime
1 1 ‘.l!P9-353%-?
and after the repealing Act has come into what
is saved is only such proceedings which
s.er’fl s 11 t- 14
sauna-.r.-.-
I-lulu
not reached that s” p _
excess land had not
when the repealing Act [imp foroe,’A_V’:t’rie 1976 Act does
not affect the eirtent of land
.1: .a_ re, erstwhile owners
4.’ an ‘-15 ‘ch
rt er’ » as Lu. reefit
who ‘
of declarant or his legal
heirs possession and as to any other
are also involved.
1′
L?
145. ‘I1 ‘.:}1i”~ =mr.a=rie we p.erAeu!ar.|.y in the wa__|r.. –
‘ Lffacts writ petitioners have approached this court
H * rs of the repeaflng Act coming into force, I
do .. not.’ confident to pass any orders in the writ
-I
* -s in the revenue …..–.,-
can only be ifthere is in law a change in ownership of the
subject lands and I do not find it very proper to declare
V
1′ the repealed Act.
‘a 1 i’1:’!\-ray ‘ ‘°. 1-“.-
~ t..e__
._… .,’–~e, ..- -_ _.– .- — _._ _
; LUBUJ
12 WP9353.07
ownership of the petitioners in respect of in
writ Jurisdiction. _ 1no1.:°._r so the. u:.a1#e
cmjmm as legal heirs of the original * T ht
15. Though an application’ for’. *1
i.m_p.eedn;ent of Mysore
hf’-id t..’~~t it is amt ” ‘hrtt;rVpV.Vft_h_is espeet,
particularly, as the __disptited’ is oniy one 01
possession; examine in
writ etppmpnam that a civil court
‘M’ré””‘*Mn”i’f Jéi “1”:I.”;=»;a-f;’.L. is for this reason. the
l\.l\.l’l.F.|J an. .;v«.–g — ‘ up
appiication for i’ 1 t Bu tuumu.
» person who was the owner ‘f tn s ujwt m
‘– land had remained in the ownership of
private persons and the repealed Act had not
V. their ownership if the proceedings had not
usfi ‘I
ted in anfluisitsien ef the excess land t- $9.1’ a
” such ineifrntal r*}i””
nn
declaration of their title and 11*
before the eompetent civil court to redress their anee. 2
1 3 WP9353.07
17. Reserving such liberty, this writ is
dismissed. s
An]-