Allowed

Smt Shantha B v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2013WP/28193/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the Writ Petition. Directed the second respondent to allot a site to the petitioner with appropriate dimensions under the resolution dated 22.10.1990 within three months. Quashed the rejection order and the State Government's cancellation resolution regarding the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed to allot a site within three months; quashed the endorsement and the cancellation resolution.

Smt Shantha B Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.28193/2013 (LA-UDA)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.Shantha B., W/o late Narasimha Bhat, Aged about 68 years, R/a No.511/B, 4^th Cross, Veene Sheshanna Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore – 570 024. …. Petitioner.

¶8

(By Sri K.R. Lingaraju, Adv.)

¶9

And:

¶10

1 State of Karnataka, Reptd. By its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶11

2 Mysore Urban Development Authority, JLB Road, Mysore – 570 001, Reptd. By its Commissioner. …. REspondents.

¶12

(By Sri R.B.Satyanarayana Singh, HCGP for R1

¶13

Sri T.P.Vivekananda, Adv. for Sri P.S.Manjunath, Adv. for R2)

¶14

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 17.1.2013 issued by the second respondent, etc.

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court passed the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order at Annexure

¶19

‘A’ dated 17.1.2013 whereby the second respondent has rejected

¶20

the application of the petitioner for allotment of the site at Vijayanagar Layout, Mysore.

¶21

The land belonging to the petitioner’s husband bearing

¶22

Sy.No.124/1 to an extent of 3 acres 24 guntas situated at Hinakal Village, Mysore Taluk and District was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the second respondent. The second respondent had passed a resolution as per Annexure ‘C’ dated 28.2.1991 resolving to pay compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre

¶23

for the lands acquired by it and also to allot a site on payment of

¶24

¶25

50% of the allotment rate. On the basis of the said resolution, several claims were made by the land owners for allotment of the sites. The petitioner had also made an application for allotment of such site. Since the said application was rejected, she filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.13844/2009 challenging the said order. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.9.2010 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in No.3859/2010. The writ appeal was allowed on 6.6.2011 and a direction was issued to the second respondent to reconsider the application in accordance with law. The MUDA has again considered the application of the petitioner resolving to allot the site subject to payment of its market value. However, the said resolution has been cancelled by the State Government as per the order at Annexure ‘B’. That is why the MUDA has issued the endorsement impugned herein.

¶26

¶27

It is not in dispute that similarly situated persons had filed

¶28

writ petitions before this Court in No.4495/2012 and other connected matters seeking allotment of sites. This Court by order dated 13.12.2012 has allowed the writ petitions and directed the second respondent to allot the sites with appropriate dimensions in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990. The operative portion of the said order is as under:

¶29

“In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allot the sites with appropriate dimensions in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990, within a period of 3 months, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners, however, shall not seek any concession in the price of the sites and shall pay the appropriate price fixed by the respondents.”

¶30

Again, in SRI KRISHNEGOWDA VS. MYSORE

¶31

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – W.P.NO.14342/2010

¶32

disposed of on 26.4.2013 , this Court has passed a similar order.

¶33

¶34

In view of the above, I am of the view that the second respondent has to allot a site in favour of the petitioner in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990.

¶35

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The second respondent is directed to allot a site with appropriate dimension in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to payment of appropriate price which may be fixed by the second respondent. The endorsement at Annexure ‘A’ and the resolution at Annexure ‘B’ in so far as the petitioner is concerned are hereby quashed. No costs.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE.

¶37

BMM/-

Smt Shantha B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shantha B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.R. Kodandaraman Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Venkataswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S N Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Parushappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharshi Savitha College of Education Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs Mr v Ramaprasad