Allowed

Sri Siddappa Gulappa Shantagar v. the State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2012WP/40589/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash the BUDA's rejection of a layout plan application. The Court held that the authority failed to consider the ten-year lapse since acquisition proceedings were quashed and a government cancellation notification, directing remand for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.10.2008 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the respondents for reconsideration within three months.

Sri Siddappa Gulappa Shantagar Vs the State of Karnataka… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 40589/2008 (LA-BDA)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Sri SIDDAPPA GULAPPA SHATAGAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O.MARANAKERI BIJAPUR. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY Smt. RATNA M SHIVAYOGIMAT, ADV., FOR M/S. SHIVAYOGIMATH ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

BIJAPUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BIJAPUR DIST. BIJAPUR.

¶14

Sri. BEERAPPA C PUJARI COMMISSIONER BIJAPUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶15

¶16

BIJAPUR DIST. BIJAPUR. … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY Sri. S R TENGLI, AGA, FOR R-1 Sri. S S HALALLI, ADV., FOR R-2 & 3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No. 3 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature

¶22

of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.10.2008 – Annexure V passed by respondent No. 3 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the application dated 18.06.2002 and letter dated 06.10.2008 – Annexure J and U.

¶23

Petitioner is the owner of lands in survey No. 305 measuring 17

¶24

acres 31 guntas in Mahala Bhagayath, Bijapur. The petitioner’s land and other lands came to be notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the formation of a housing colony by respondent No. 2 Bijapur Urban Development Authority. Subsequently on 16.07.1992 a final

¶25

notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be

¶26

¶27

issued. This Court in W.P. No. 1648/1993 to 1651/1993 allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to proceed from the stage of notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter the respondents issued a final notification on 02.02.2000 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner questioned the notification dated 02.02.2000 before this Court in W.P. No. 22027/2000. This Court vide order dated 11.01.2011 allowed the writ petition, quashed the notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and reserved liberty to the respondents to continue and conclude the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing of the objections filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the respondents have not taken further steps.

¶28

On the other hand the Government of Karnataka in its notification dated 21.03.2001 through its revenue department cancelled the earlier notification in respect of the lands in question on the ground that they are not required for the said purpose. When the matter stood at that stage the petitioner approached the respondents for approval of the layout plan in respect of the lands in question. The respondents by their order dated 17.06.2005 refused the request of the petitioner for approval of the layout plan. Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 22842/2005 set aside the order of respondents dated 17.06.2005 and directed the respondents to approve the layout plan of the petitioner. Further a Division Bench of this

¶29

¶30

Court in W.A. No. 339/2008 modified the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for approval of the layout plan in accordance with law. Again the respondents under the impugned order rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶31

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ

¶32

papers.

¶33

The respondents while passing the impugned order have not considered the fact that subsequent to the disposal of W.P. No. 22027/2000 no steps are taken to acquire the lands in question even after 10 years. Further the respondents have failed to take into consideration the Government notification Annexure D dated 21.03.2001 canceling the earlier notification. Further the respondents have not taken into consideration the effect of non-implementation of the scheme insofar as it relates to petitioner’s lands is concerned under Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. Further the respondents have not taken into consideration the effect of not proceeding from the stage of notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act from the year 2001. On these grounds the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶34

¶35

For the reasons stated above, the following;

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶38

ii. The impugned order dated 24.10.2008 – Annexure V is hereby quashed.

¶39

iii. The matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsideration in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above as expeditiously as possible and in any event not

¶40

later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶41

order. Ordered accordingly.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE.

¶43

LRS.

Sri Siddappa Gulappa Shantagar v. the State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddappa Gulappa Shantagar v. the State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bhavani Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Chandrakant S/O Gundappa Vs the Ksrtc Central Office Ors.

Veerantayya S/O Sharanayya Chaturacharay Math Vs Ganpati S/O Ishwaraiah Hippargi

K.Nagayya S/O Veerayya Vs State of Karnataka

R.Thimmaiah Setty S/O.Late R.Vithoba Setty, Vs Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Manvi

Anusuyabai W/O Somashekhar Udachan Anr. Vs Pramod S/O Revansiddanna Manch