Allowed

Smt Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2022WP/18275/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed multiple writ petitions challenging a Preliminary Notification for a residential layout issued in 2011. Holding that the lack of final notification and inordinate delay over ten years rendered the action voidable, the court quashed the notification regarding lands belonging to the petitioners under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Act, 1987.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; Impugned Preliminary Notification dated 07th July 2011 quashed insofar as it pertains to lands belonging to the petitioners.

Smt Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 40612 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 18275 OF 2016 (LA-UDA), WRIT PETITION NO. 18786 OF 2016 (LA-UDA), WRIT PETITION NO. 41072 OF 2016 (LA-RES), WRIT PETITION

¶10

NO. 41074 OF 2016(LA-UDA)AND

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 41076 OF 2016(LA-UDA)

¶12

IN WP NO.40612 OF 2016

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. MANJU NAIK @ RAMA NAIK, S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

¶21

¶22

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶23

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU -573103.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.07.2011 (ANENXURE-C) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶27

IN WP NO.18275 OF 2016

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SMT. JAYAMMA

¶30

W/O BUDDEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶31

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶32

SRI RAMAIAH S/O CHENNIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶33

ALL ARE R/O MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶34

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶35

…PETITIONERS

¶36

¶37

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶38

AND:

¶39

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶40

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU -573103.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.07.2011 (ANENXURE-D) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶44

IN WP NO.18786 OF 2016

¶45

BETWEEN:

¶46

SRI. KUMBAIAH, S/O DODDANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶47

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶48

…PETITIONER

¶49

¶50

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶51

AND:

¶52

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶53

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU -573103.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.07.2011 VIDE ANENXURE-G ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶57

IN WP NO.41072 OF 2016

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

SRI. SANJEEVARAYAPPA S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶60

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶61

…PETITIONER

¶62

¶63

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶64

AND:

¶65

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶66

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU -573103.

¶67

…RESPONDENTS

¶68

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶69

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 16.09.2021 AND 07.07.2011 (ANENXURE-C AND D) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶70

IN WP NO.41074 OF 2016

¶71

BETWEEN:

¶72

SRI CHIKKAVEERAIAH S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶73

SRI M V NAGARAJ S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶74

SRI M V ANAND S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶75

¶76

WP No. 40612 of 2016

¶77

C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶78

SRI M V RAMESH S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶79

ALL ARE R/O MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶80

…PETITIONERS

¶81

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶82

AND:

¶83

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶84

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU -573103.

¶85

…RESPONDENTS

¶86

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶87

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.07.2011 (ANENXURE-D) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶88

¶89

WP No. 40612 of 2016

¶90

C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶91

IN WP NO.41076 OF 2016

¶92

BETWEEN:

¶93

SRI DODDAVEERAIAH S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶94

SRI BHAGYAMMA D/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶95

M G PARAMESH S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶96

ALL ARE R/O MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶97

…PETITIONERS

¶98

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶99

AND:

¶100

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶101

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU -573103.

¶102

…RESPONDENTS

¶103

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AGA FOR R1; SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶104

¶105

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶106

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.07.2011 (ANENXURE-C) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT; AND ETC.,

¶107

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

¶108

ORDER

¶109

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Preliminary Notification dated 07^th July, 2011 issued by the respondent No.2 for formation residential layout and allotment of sites in Tumakuru City.

¶110

The relevant facts for adjudication of these writ petitions are that the petitioners claim to be owners in possession of various land stated in the first paragraph of the writ petition No.40612 of 2016 and the contention in writ petitions is that though the Preliminary Notification has been issued by the respondent-authorities on 12^th July, 2011 for the purpose of formation of residential layout, the respondents have not taken any further action in the matter and accordingly, the grievance of the petitioners is that the

¶111

¶112

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶113

respondent-authorities have abandoned the scheme notified in

¶114

the Preliminary Notification dated 12^th July, 2011. Hence, these writ petitions are presented.

¶115

The impugned Preliminary Notification has been issued by respondent No.2 and as such, statement of objection has been filed by the respondent-authority taking a defence that the consideration with regard to issuance of final Notification is in the domain of State Government and as such, sought for dismissal of writ petitions.

¶116

Heard Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri Showri H R, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1; and Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶117

Sri P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the parties contended that though the respondent-authorities have issued notification under 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Act”), however, no further action has been taken pursuant to the same and accordingly, the Preliminary Notification does not

¶118

10 -

¶119

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶120

survive for consideration and as such, sought for quashing of Notification issued under 17(1) of the Act.

¶121

Per contra, Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority, sought to justify the Notification issued under section 17(1) of the Act and he further contended that the relevant communication has been made between the Government and respondent inter alia with the Director of Town Planning for the purpose of formation of residential layout in Tumkuru city and as such, he contended that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶122

Sri Showri H R, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-State reiterated the submission made by Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶123

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 has issued preliminary notification dated 07^th July, 2011 under Section 17(1) of the Act whereby the respondent-authority notified the lands in question for the

¶124

11 -

¶125

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶126

purpose of formation of proposed residential layout. On careful consideration of the writ papers as well as the statement of objection filed by Respondent No.2, though the Preliminary Notification has been issued in the year 2011, the respondents herein have not taken steps to issue Final Notification. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the law declared by this Court in the case of C.G. GANGADHAR v. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOLPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE AND ANOTHER reported in 2013(4) KLJ 559, wherein this Court, at paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment, observed as follows:

¶127

…extract pragraph 4 and 6…

¶128

Applying the principle laid down by this court in the aforementioned decision, no doubt the respondent No.2 having issued Preliminary Notification in the year 2011, however, have not explained the inordinate delay in executing the scheme and that apart no Final Notification is issued as required under Section 19(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter that even after lapse of ten years no action has been taken by the respondent-authority pursuant to the issuance of Preliminary Notification on 07^th July, 2011, under Section 17(1) of the Act,

¶129

12 -

¶130

WP No. 40612 of 2016 C/W WP Nos. 18275 of 2016, 18786 of 2016, 41072 of 2016, 41074 of 2016, 41076 of 2016

¶131

petitioners succeed and accordingly, writ petitions are allowed.

¶132

Impugned Preliminary Notification dated 07^th July, 2011 is quashed insofar as the lands belonging to the petitioners.

¶133

Sd/JUDGE

¶134

LNN

¶135

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Smt Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma 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

Smt a Chayadevi Vs Mr B Gajendra

Smt. Shilpa Vs Sri Shivakumar

Sri Muniraju v Vs Smt. Muniyamma

Sri Kumbaiah Vs State of Krantaka

Smt v Chandrakala Vs Sri T Premakumar

Sri. Manju Naik@ Rama Naik Vs State of Karnataka