Allowed

Smt. Chinnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022WP/1242/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed the preliminary and final notifications dated 1992 and 1996 regarding land acquisition in Alanahalli village. The Court held that the scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the KUDA Act as the land was not substantially implemented within five years, and a later merger of schemes was legally impermissible.

What did the court decide?

The impugned preliminary notification dated 25.06.1992 and final notification dated 18.03.1996 and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed insofar as they concern the schedule propert

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 1242 OF 2019(LA-UDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. CHINNAMMA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE MARISWAMY.

¶10

SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE MARISWAMY.

¶11

NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE MARISWAMY.

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT ALANAHALLI VILLAGE SIDARTHANAGAR POST, MYSURU – 570 011.

¶13

L.DEVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA R/AT NO. 1403, POORNADRUSTI ROAD C & D BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGAR

¶14

CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 009.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

²

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE MUSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAMESH GOWDA.D.AGA, FOR R-1, SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.M. SIDDARTH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. LAQ(5) SR7/92-93, WHICH WAS GAZETTE DATED: 25.06.1992, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A1 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED: 18.03.1996, BEARING NO. UDDD/274/MIB/95, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE ACT BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A2 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED AS LAPSED AND ETC.

¶25

THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.12.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification dated 25.06.1992 and impugned final notification dated 18.03.1996 issued by the respondents under Sections 17 and 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (for short ‘the KUDA Act’) and for other reliefs.

¶28

³

¶29

The subject property involved in the present petition is the land bearing Sy.No.153/2 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas situated at Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru taluk and district.

¶30

Brief facts leading to the case as contended in the petition are as follows:-

¶31

Petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid subject land. It is contended that though the respondents notified that the subject land for acquisition by issuing preliminary notification dated 25.06.1992 and final notification dated 18.03.1996 and passed an award on 15.12.1999, the petitioners had no notice of the acquisition proceedings and came to know about the same only in the year 2016, subsequent to which, they obtained all relevant documents in this regard. Petitioners also submitted an application on 31.08.2017 seeking ‘NOC’, to which, the 2^nd respondent – MUDA informed the petitioners that the aforesaid final notification had been quashed. However, subsequently, the respondent - MUDA changed its version and issued an Endorsement dated 25.01.2018 stating that they had

¶32

⁴

¶33

issued a Notification dated 17.05.2003 under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the L.A.Act’) which was incorrect, since the said Section 16(2) Notification had been withdrawn on 31.12.2003 itself and recorded by this Court in W.P.No.52111/2003 & connected matters dated 12.03.2004.

¶34

3.1 Petitioners further contend that the adjacent lands to an extent of 70 acres 23 guntas had been deleted by the State Government on 02.08.2000 and on the ground of parity, the petitioners are entitled to get the acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject land be quashed, since they had developed the lands by investing huge amounts.

¶35

3.2 It is contended that while the subject land are situated at Alanahalli village, the lands at Nadanahalli were also notified for acquisition to an extent of 236.09 acres vide preliminary notification dated 18.12.1996. The final notification in this regard was issued on 06.11.1997 to an extent of 225 acres 14 guntas. Out of the aforesaid extent, the respondents have formed the layout only to an extent of 139 acres and in all, only 2018 sites were formed in

¶36

⁵

¶37

Nadanahalli village, which is now known as ‘Vasanthnagar layout’. It is contended that the said acquisition proceedings in respect of Nadanahalli village were completely different from the acquisition proceedings in respect of the acquisition of the subject land at Alanahalli vilalge.

¶38

3.3 Petitioners contends that the scheme in respect of the acquisition of the subject land at Alanahalli village has been abandoned by the respondents and that the same was not substantially executed or implemented within a period of 5 years from 1996 as required under Section 27 of the KUDA Act and the scheme as well as the acquisition proceedings have accordingly lapsed. It is therefore contended that the letter addressed by the Commissioner of MUDA to the office of learned Additional Advocate General, Government of Karnataka will indicate that it was found only 169 acres 12 guntas in Alanahalli village was required for development of the layout, out of which, possession of only 55 acres 25 guntas was taken by the respondents in Alanahalli village, which is not been developed. It is contended that the MUDA never intended to form a layout in Alanahalli village and that the portions of

¶39

⁶

¶40

lands in Alanahalli village were sought to be sold by MUDA in public auction. It is also contended that the subsequent alleged scheme comprising of both Alanahalli and Nadanahalli Villages in the year 2003 and its approval is contrary to law and impermissible under Sections 15 to 19 of the BDA Act since two separate and independent notifications, both preliminary and final, had been issued in respect of both villages during the period 1992 to 1997. It is also contended that in W.P.No.28508/2009 and connected matters, this Court has also come to the conclusion that prior approval and sanction to the scheme in respect of Alanahalli village had not been sanctioned and approved by the State Government. It is therefore contended that the impugned notifications and the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶41

Respondents 2 and 3 – MUDA have filed its statement of objections as well as additional statement of objections and have opposed the petition inter alia contending that the acquisition proceedings have been duly undertaken in accordance with law and the petitioners were

¶42

⁷

¶43

fully aware of the same. It is contended that the award notice has been duly served upon the petitioners in the year 2000 itself and possession of the land was taken on 13.01.2003 and the notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A.Act was issued on 17.05.2003 and also evidenced by the mahazar, possession letter, report of the revenue inspector and land surveyor etc., The petitioners who were aware of the acquisition proceedings are guilty of suppression of material facts and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

4.1 It is further contended that no reliance can be placed by the petitioners on the earlier round of litigation in support of their claim. It is contended that there are no two separate layouts in Alanahalli village and Nadanahalli village, but it was one composite layout that was developed and known as ‘Vasanthnagar layout’. The deletion / dropping of 70 acres subsequent to final notification in Alanahalli village has been admitted by the respondents. However, on 18.12.1996, the lands of the adjacent village i.e., Nadanahalli village was notified for acquisition by issuing the preliminary notification, pursuant to which, the

¶45

⁸

¶46

final notification was issued in respect of 225 acres and an award was passed. It is therefore contended that there is substantial implementation of the scheme in respect of Vasanthnagar layout which is also known as ‘Alanahalli – Nadanahalli layout’, in respect of which, the scheme was approved on 30.10.2003, pursuant to the award being passed by the State Government on 29.06.1998 comprising of lands in Nadanahalli village.

¶47

4.2 It is contended that out of the total extent of 225 acres in Nadanahalli village and 350 acres in Alanahalli village together, it was resolved to form a layout only to an extent of 316 acres in both the villages together out of which, the possession of 118 acres in Nadanahalli village and 55 acres in Alanahalli village was taken by the respondents. The respondents have disputed the various correspondences, endorsements etc., referred to by the petitioners and have contended that no reliance can be placed upon the same in support of the petitioners claim. So also, the adjacent land owners had approached this Court in W.P.No.9829/2008 dated 02.03.2009 which was rejected by this Court and confirmed in W.A.No.2687/2009

¶48

⁹

¶49

dated 14.06.2010 as well as the Review petition in R.P.No.315/2010 dated 25.05.2012 and also affirmed by the Apex Court.

¶50

4.3 It is contended that Sections 15 to 19 of the KUDA Act permit merging of two separate schemes and formation of a common layout lands situated in the two villages which are adjacent to each other. Thus denying the various allegations and claims made by the petitioners, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondent No.1 – State as well as learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 - MUDA and perused the material on record.

¶52

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated, illegal and deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the following decisions:-

¶53

¹⁰

¶54

(i) Ram Chand vs. Union of India – (1994) 1 SCC 44;

¶55

(ii) Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharastra – (2005) 7 SCC 607;

¶56

(iii) Hukam Chand vs. State of Haryana – (2013) 11 SCC 578;

¶57

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the respondents – MUDA places reliance upon the following decisions:-

¶58

(i) V.Chandrashekaran vs. Administrative

¶59

Officer – (2012) 12 SCC 133;

¶60

(ii) Krishnamurthy vs. BDA – (1996) 3 KLJ

¶61

506;

¶62

(iii) Offshore Holdings vs. BDA – (2011) 3 SCC 139;

¶63

(iv) Municipal Council vs. Shah Hyder Baig – (2000) 2 SCC 448;

¶64

(v) Anantaswamy vs. State of Karnataka – W.A.1451/2018 Dated 02.03.2021;

¶65

(vi) S.Jagannath vs. BDA – W.A.No.5623/2017 Dated 30.06.2021;

¶66

¹¹

¶67

(vii) K.S.Meenakshi vs. State of Karnataka –

¶68

W.A.No.1274/2018 dated 19.04.2021;

¶69

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival

¶70

submissions.

¶71

Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the undisputed facts with regard to the acquisition proceedings in relation to both Alanahalli village

¶72

and Nadanahalli village, which are as under:-

¶73

ALANAHALII VILLAGE

¶74

Preliminary notification	25.06.1992
Approval of scheme	18.02.1993
Final notification	18.03.1996
Award	15.12.1999

¶75

NADANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶76

Preliminary notification	07.12.1996
Approval of scheme	30.01.1997
Final notification	06.11.1997
Award	29.06.1998

¶77

The material on record also discloses that both

¶78

the aforesaid acquisition proceedings in respect of the said villages were part of two separate, independent and distinct schemes which neither correlated to one another nor had a

¶79

¹²

¶80

reference to each other, particularly when they related to two separate and distinct villages i.e., Alanahalli and Nadanahalli. It is sought to be contended by the respondents that both the schemes in respect of both the villages got merged and consolidated with one another vide approval dated 30.10.2003 issued by the State Government. It is however not in dispute that subsequent to the aforesaid approval of the scheme on 30.10.2003, neither the BDA nor the State Government have issued any fresh / new preliminary notification or final notification under Section 17 or 19 of the KUDA Act. Further, the said approval dated 30.10.2003 is contrary to law, in particular Sections 15 to 19 of the KUDA Act as well as the material on record and the same cannot be relied upon by the respondents for the reasons recorded later in this order.

¶81

In my considered opinion, the impugned preliminary notification dated 25.03.1992 and final notification dated 18.03.1996 in respect of the subject land situated at Alanahalli village deserve to be quashed for the following reasons:-

¶82

¹³

¶83

(i) A perusal of the undisputed material on record will indicate that while the preliminary notification dated 25.03.1992 in relation to the lands in Alanahalli Village comprised of 353 acres 12 guntas, the final notification dated 18.03.1996 was in respect of 350 acres 16 guntas. However, an award dated 15.12.1999 has been passed only to an extent of 169 acres 12.5 guntas. The material on record, in particular the documents produced by the respondents including the letter dated 16.12.2020 written by the Commissioner, MUDA to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, Bangalore, will indicate that out of the aforesaid 169 acres 12.5 guntas in respect of which an award was passed, respondents took possession of only an extent 55 Acres. It is also seen that out of the aforesaid extent of 55 acres in Alanahalli village, only Sy.No.148 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas has been developed. It is therefore clear that out of the total extent of 350 acres notified in the final notification, the respondents took possession of only about 55 acres after passing an award to an extent of only 169 acres and eventually developed only the land bearing Sy.No.148 measuring 1

¶84

¹⁴

¶85

acre 11 guntas. In other words, despite having formulated / framed the scheme in relation to the land at Alanahalli village to an extent of more than 350 acres as per the final notification, except for 1 acre 11 guntas, the remaining extent of around 349 Acres remained undeveloped and the scheme in relation to the remaining 349 Acres including the subject land has not been substantially implemented or executed within a period of 5 years as required under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, and consequently, the impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the scheme in respect of the subject land situated at Alanahalli has clearly stood lapsed.

¶86

(ii) The categorical, unequivocal and unambiguous admissions made in the pleadings and documents of the respondents will clearly indicate that out of 55 acres 15 guntas in Alanahalli village, which is said to have been taken possession of by the respondents, they have utilised only Sy.No.148 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and the rest of the lands to an extent of 55 acres have not been utilised. The said admission is sufficient to show that the scheme in respect of the lands at Alanahalli village has not been

¶87

¹⁵

¶88

substantially implemented or executed and consequently, the impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the said scheme are vitiated on this ground also.

¶89

(iii) The respondents seek to contend that in addition to the impugned acquisition proceedings in respect of Alanahalli Village pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 25.06.1992 and final notification dated 18.03.1996, the respondents had also instituted acquisition proceedings in respect of neighboring Nadanahalli Village measuring 215 acres vide preliminary notification dated 18.12.1996 and final notification dated 06.11.1997 and a composite layout known as ‘Vasanthnagar layout’ (Alanahalli – Nadanahalli village) has been formed. In this context, it is sought to be contended that the original schemes which were separately formulated / framed in respect of both the villages was merged and consolidated under a modified scheme which was approved by the State Government on 30.10.2003 and accordingly, the challenge to the impugned acquisition in respect of Alanahalli village would have to be rejected.

¶90

¹⁶

¶91

(iv) The said contention regarding the approval dated 30.10.2003 is not only misconceived and untenable but is contrary to law and also the provisions of Sections 15 to 19 of the KUDA Act. It is an undisputed fact that subsequent to the aforesaid approval of the scheme on 30.10.2003, neither the BDA nor the State Government have issued any fresh / new preliminary notification or final notification under Section 17 or 19 of the KUDA Act; in fact, the only aforesaid preliminary and final notifications issued by the respondents with regard to the acquisitions at both Alanahalli village and Nadanahalli village were prior to the aforesaid approval dated 30.10.2003 issued by the State Government to the scheme and since the aforesaid notifications preceded the scheme which was approved only on 30.10.2003, in the absence of any fresh notifications or awards subsequent to 30.10.2003, no reliance can be placed upon the said approval dated 30.10.2003 by the respondents in support of their contentions which are liable to be rejected.

¶92

(v) It is also relevant to state that Section 15 of the KUDA Act empowers the KUDA to draw up a development

¶93

¹⁷

¶94

scheme, while Section 16 provides for particulars and details to be contained in the said scheme; Section 17 of the KUDA Act mandates that upon preparation of the scheme, a preliminary notification has to be issued by MUDA and forwarded to the State Government for sanction / approval. Section 18 of the KUDA Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the State Government for granting sanction / approval to the scheme, pursuant to which, the State Government publishes the final notification under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act. It is significant to note that Section 19(4) empowers and authorizes the authority to alter / modify the scheme at any stage and execute the same.

¶95

(vi) A perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 15 to 19 of the KUDA Act will clearly indicate that there is no statutory provision which permits the MUDA to merge two distinct, separate and independent schemes and consolidate the same into one composite scheme, especially after two separate final notifications have already been issued pursuant to the earlier approved schemes. Section 19(4) of the KUDA Act, which permits modification

¶96

¹⁸

¶97

of the schemes also cannot be interpreted/construed to mean / include empowering or enabling MUDA to merge/consolidate two distinct, separate and independent schemes and consolidate the same into one composite scheme. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed by the respondents upon the modified scheme dated 30.10.2003 comprising of both Alanahalli and Nadanahalli Villages in order to contend that the impugned acquisition is correct and proper and accordingly, the said contention cannot be accepted.

¶98

(vii) In the instant case, the undisputed material on record clearly establish that the scheme in respect of Alanahalli village, pursuant to which, the notifications dated 25.06.1992 and 18.03.1996 were issued is completely different, distinct, separate and independent from the scheme in respect of Nadanahalli village, pursuant to which the notifications dated 18.12.1996 and 06.11.1997 were issued by the respondents. The aforesaid acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands at Alanahalli village were completely distinct, different and separate from the acquisition proceedings in relation to Nadanahalli village

¶99

¹⁹

¶100

which were mutually exclusive schemes being independent and distinct from each other and both the schemes in respect of two different villages could not have been merged and consolidated to form one composite scheme which is impermissible in law. It is therefore clear that no reliance can be placed upon the alleged approval dated 30.10.2003 said to have been granted by the State Government for the modified scheme in order to contend that the challenge to the acquisition is liable to be rejected.

¶101

(viii) The contention of the respondents with regard to validity of the composite / consolidated scheme in respect of ‘Vasanthanagar layout’ (Alanahalli and Nadanahalli layout) can be considered from yet another angle. A perusal of the provisions of the KUDA Act will indicate that pursuant to the final notification being issued under Section 19 of the KUDA Act, the respondents would have to necessarily proceed with the acquisition by taking necessary steps in terms of the L.A.Act, 1894, in view of Section 36 of the KUDA Act. In other words, there is no provision under the KUDA Act for passing of award, payment of compensation, taking of possession etc., and it

¶102

²⁰

¶103

is the L.A.Act that would apply for the said purpose. In the instant case, as stated supra, the award in respect of the lands at Alanahalli village was passed on 30.12.1999, while the award in respect of Nadahanalli village lands was passed on 29.06.1998. Both the awards in respect of the lands in both the villages were passed prior to 30.10.2003, when the State Government is said to have accorded approval in respect of the modified scheme for formation of the composite / consolidated “Vasanthnagar layout”. These undisputed facts clearly establish that upon two separate awards being passed pursuant to the two separate distinct and independent schemes in relation to both the villages, the question of modifying the scheme subsequent to passing of the awards would not arise and the same is impermissible in law. In this context, it is also relevant to state that even according to the respondents, possession of the lands in both the villages had been allegedly taken by the respondents prior to approval of the modified scheme on 30.10.2003. Under these circumstances, in the light of the specific stance of the respondents that the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of both the villages

¶104

²¹

¶105

which commenced from 1992 and possession allegedly taken in 2003 prior to 30.10.2003 when the scheme was allegedly modified, the question of modifying the schemes which had been taken to its logical end by passing an award, taking possession etc., is also not permissible in law and on this score also, the respondents are not entitled to place reliance upon the modified scheme which cannot have retrospective effect/application nor affect the acquisition proceedings which, even according to the respondents stood concluded prior to 30.10.2003 when the modified scheme was approved by the State government.

¶106

(ix) The contention of the respondents that they took possession of the subject land from the petitioner in terms of the possession mahazar, notices etc., as well as Section 16(2) of the Notification dated 17.05.2003 also cannot be accepted; while the possession, mahazar, notices, report etc., clearly establish that the same are cyclostyled documents without containing the addresses, details, signatures etc., of the land owners and the alleged witness. The 16(2) Notification dated 17.05.2003 has undisputedly being withdrawn on 31.12.2003 itself and recognised and

¶107

²²

¶108

affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.52111/2003 dated 12.03.2004 and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the such documents to come to the conclusion that the respondents have taken possession of the subject land from the petitioners.

¶109

(x) Insofar as the contention of the respondents that in view of the earlier round of litigation arising out of W.P.No.9829/2008 and confirmed right up to the Apex Court, the present petition is not maintainable and barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata is concerned, it is relevant to state that the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition proceedings qua the alleged modified scheme dated 30.10.2003 did not arise for consideration in the said proceedings and the same having not been adjudicated upon nor any finding recorded in this regard, it cannot be said that the present petition is barred by res judicata. Further, in the said proceedings, the respondents did not put forth any plea with regard to the aforesaid approval dated 30.10.2003 for the consolidated scheme of both Alanahalli and Nadanahalli villages and accordingly, in the absence of any issue / question that

¶110

²³

¶111

arose for consideration in the said proceedings or which was capable of being the subject matter of the said proceedings, so as to enable the petitioners to assail the said approval dated 30.10.2003, it cannot be said that the present petition is barred by constructive res judicata also and consequently, even this contention cannot be accepted.

¶112

(xi) Insofar as the contention urged by the respondents with regard to delay and latches are concerned, in addition to the fact that this Court has already come to the conclusion that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and that the respondents have not taken possession of the same, the specific contention of the petitioners that the cause of action arose only when the petitioners came to know about the previous proceedings and the respondents admitted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, is sufficient to indicate that the petitioners are not guilty of any lapse or delay in preferring the present petition. In this context, as stated supra, it is the specific contention of the respondents that out of 55 acres, which the respondents are alleged to

¶113

²⁴

¶114

have taken possession of, they have developed only Sy.No.148 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and in the light of the undisputed fact that the remaining 54 acres have not been developed, which includes the subject land, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of delay and latches and even this contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.

¶115

(xii) A perusal of the approval in the modified scheme dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure-R19) will indicate that there is no reference to the impugned Notification dated 25.06.1992 and final notification dated 18.03.1996 or the award dated 30.12.1999 in the said approval. In fact, the alleged approval dated 30.10.2003 despite referring to Alanahalli – Nadanahalli II stage, merely refers to the scheme dated 07.12.1996 formulated by MUDA and the sanction for the scheme granted in favour of MUDA on 30.01.1997 only in respect of the lands at Nadanahalli village and not at Alanahalli village. The respondents have also not contended that prior to approval dated 30.10.2003, any other notifications / awards in relation to Alanahalli had been issued or passed by the respondents. Under these

¶116

²⁵

¶117

circumstances, in the absence of the approval dated 30.10.2003 referring to the scheme in respect of lands at Alanahalli Village, pursuant to which, the impugned Notification dated 25.06.1992 and 18.03.1996 were issued, it cannot be said that the modified scheme in respect of the lands at Alanahalli village and Nadanahalli village included the lands at Alanahalli also. It follows there from that if the approval dated 30.10.2003 did not include the subject land, since the respondents took possession of only 55 acres and developed only 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.148, the scheme in respect of the subject land which did not merge or got consolidated with the modified scheme, is sufficient to establish that the scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of KUDA Act and on this ground also, the impugned acquisition deserves to be quashed.

¶118

(xiii) The respondents have contended that in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.No.2687/2009, this Court has recorded a finding that from the original records produced by MUDA, it is clear that ‘Alanahalli II stage’ was later named as ‘Vasanthnagar layout’ and 2018 sites have already been formed in the layout and distributed and as

¶119

²⁶

¶120

such, it cannot be said that the scheme has not been substantially executed or implemented by the MUDA. In this context, a perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this Court will clearly indicate that the said finding is not only contrary to the material on record obtaining in the instant case produced by MUDA, but the same is also contrary to the specific stance of MUDA in the present case that development of 55 acres of land in Alanahalli village, the MUDA had taken possession of only 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.148 and the remaining extent of lands in Alanahalli village had remained unutilized and undeveloped. It is therefore clear that the said finding with regard to layout being named as ‘Vasanthnagar layout’ and 2018 sites have been formed in the layout and distributed, did not pertain to Alanahalli but in fact pertains to Nadanahalli, particularly when the distribution of any sites in any portion of Alanahalli has not been completed by MUDA and consequently, even this contention cannot be accepted.

¶121

Though both sides have relied upon the various judgments in support of their respective contentions, in

¶122

²⁷

¶123

view of the findings recorded above, which arise from the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case, it may not be necessary to refer to the said judgments for the purpose of disposal of the present petition.

¶124

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶125

ORDER

¶126

(i) Petition is hereby allowed;

¶127

(ii) The impugned preliminary notification at Annexure-A1 dated 25.06.1992 and final notification at Annexure-A2 dated 18.03.1996 and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, insofar as the schedule property bearing Sy.No.153/2 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas situated at Alanahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Mysuru district are concerned are hereby quashed.

¶128

Sd/JUDGE

¶129

Srl.

Smt. Chinnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chinnamma v. the 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

Mr K J Praveen Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri Bhaskar Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bharat Electronics Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka

August Ventures (P) Limited Vs Karnataka Udyoga Mitra

Smt. Noor Jahan Iqbal Vs the Commissioner