Allowed

Devamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021WP/3164/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the preliminary notification for land acquisition under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act. The Court held that in view of the lapse of time and lack of further proceedings, and relying on identical precedents, it quashed the notification. The petition was disposed off accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The preliminary notification insofar as it affected the petitioners was quashed. Petition disposed of.

Devamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3164/2021 (LA-UDA)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

DEVAMMA W/O NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.21, LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 028.

¶8

SRI DEVARAJU

¶9

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.22, LALITHADRIPURA ALANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI,

¶10

MYSURU - 570 028.

¶11

MANJU

¶12

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.21, LALITHADRIPURA VARUNA HOBLI,

¶13

MYSURU - 570 028.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. K. R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

¶18

¶19

VIKASA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER JLB ROAD,

¶22

MYSURU - 570 005.

¶23

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSURU - 570 007.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 Sri. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1987 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY. NO.111 MEASURING 14 GUNTAS SITUATED AT LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, (SL NO.63 IN PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND GRANT SAME RELIEF AS IT IS ALREADY PASSED IN SIMILAR WP NO.56078/2016 (LA-BDA) DATED 03.11.2016 AND WP NOS.29288-29289/2019 (LA-UDA) DATED 12.07.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND E1 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners have sought for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification bearing No.LAQ(4)CR31/2005-06 dated 13.12.2006 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-A published under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act in respect of petitioners' land bearing Sy. No.111 measuring 14 guntas situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District.

¶32

Petitioners submit that despite preliminary notification having been passed on 13.12.2006, no further proceedings have been proceeded with by the respondents and till date, no final notification / declaration has been passed. It is further submitted that as the respondents have not taken any action within a reasonable period of time, land acquisition proceedings are to be quashed on the ground of proceedings having been lapsed.

¶33

¶34

Petitioner relies on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.56078/2016 and W.P.Nos. 29288-

¶35

289/2019 wherein under a similar factual matrix where no final notification was passed, proceedings for acquisition initiated by the respondents were set aside.

¶36

Sri. G. B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the orders at Annexures-E and E1 have attained finality.

¶37

Paragraph No.3 of the order passed in W.P.No.56078/2016 reads as hereunder:

¶38

"Admittedly, the final notification has not been issued for acquisition of the lands in question in furtherance of the preliminary notification. In an idential case, this Court in C.G.Gangadhar vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore and another - 2013(4) Kar.L.J. 559, has quashed the impugned preliminary notification therein. Following the said decision, this Court in W.P.Nos. 10917-923/2014 and connected matters (between Sri. C.m.Swamy /vs./ Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore and

¶39

¶40

another) has quashed the impugned preliminary notification therein.

¶41

The observations extracted above applies on all fours to the present factual matrix. Accordingly, the preliminary notification which has been set aside in other matters as observed above and noticing that no further proceedings have been initiated after passing of preliminary notification and taking note of the observations made in W.P.No.56078/2016, the preliminary notification insofar as petitioners herein are quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off .

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

VP

Devamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

M/S S K Construction Vs the General Manager

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria Vs M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP

Sri Rudraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M.C.Raghavanka Vs Union of India