Allowed

A N Satyanarayana Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023WP/19604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed preliminary land acquisition notifications issued under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. The court directed the authority to decide on similar vacant notifications within three months to resolve landowners' confusion, extending the relief based on coordinate bench precedents.

What did the court decide?

The preliminary notifications pertaining to the properties of the petitioners were quashed. The respondents were directed to take a final decision on similar accumulated notifications within three mon

A N Satyanarayana Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023

¶2

C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 19604 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 13415 OF 2023 (LA-UDA) WRIT PETITION NO. 21012 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)

¶11

IN WP.NO.19604 OF 2023

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

A N SATYANARAYANA PRASAD S/O LATE A R NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A BELOW MENTIONED ADDRESS #141, VALMIKI, PF OFFICE ROAD GAYATHRIPURAM 2ND STAGE UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE KARNATAKA-570 019.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SMT. KUSUMA.M.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶21

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶22

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE-570 005.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED:28.06.2016, BEARING N.LAQ(1)BA/1/ 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶26

IN WP.NO.13415 OF 2023

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI MADAPPA S/O SAMBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO.18, 2ND CROSS, J.T.KOPPAL, 3RD STAGE, K.H.B COLONY, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE - 560 023.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023

¶33

C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶34

AND:

¶35

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶36

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSIRANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE CITY -570 005, REPT. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶37

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSIRANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE CITY -570 005.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION VIDE NO. LAQ(1)BA/1/2016-17 DATED 28/06/2016 U/S 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 AS AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDEN NO.2 IN SO FOR IT RELATES TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY AT SERIAL NO. 287 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED.

¶41

IN WP.NO.21012 OF 2023

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SRI.KUMARA SWAMY M S/O MARIGOWDA,

¶44

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶45

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, #10A-14 VASU LAYOUT, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, 1 BLOCK, J T EXTENSION , MYSURU 570 023.

¶46

…PETITIONER

¶47

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

¶48

AND:

¶49

1 STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶50

2 THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J .L B ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶51

3 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J L B ROAD, MYSURU 570 005.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a). ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. LAQ (1)B/1/2016-17 DATED 28/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1987 FOR FORMATION OF LAYOUT KNOWN AS "BALLAHALLI LAYOUT" IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER LAND BEARING SY. NO. 33/3, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT BALLAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT (SL. NO. 121 IN THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION)

¶55

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶56

IN TERMS OF ORDERS IN WP NO. 5213/2022 (LA-UDA) DATED 19/09/2022 AND W.P.NO.21098/2022 (LA-UDA) DATED 02/12/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE- D AND D1.

¶57

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

Heard Smt. Kusuma, Sri. Rajendra M.S and Sri. K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned AGA for the respondent No.1 and Sri. G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶60

Writ Petition No.19604/2023 is filed seeking quashment of Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.2-MUDA in respect of land bearing Sy.No.149/2 of Ballahali village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District.

¶61

Writ Petition No.13415/2023 is filed seeking quashment of preliminary notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by respondent No.2 -MUDA in respect of land in

¶62

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶63

Sy.No.137, measuring 3 acres of Ballahali village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶64

Writ Petition No.21012/2023 is filed seeking quash of the preliminary notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by respondent No.2-MUDA as per Annexure-A in respect of land in Sy.No.33/3 measuring 22 guntas of land situated at Ballahali Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District.

¶65

The principal contentions of the petitioners in these writ petitions are that though the preliminary notifications have been issued on the dates referred to herein above, no further process have been initiated by the respondents-MUDA, resulting the said acquisitions ought to be treated as having lapsed or abandoned.

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court quashing the aforesaid notifications on the same grounds.

¶67

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023

¶68

C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶69

This Court considering the fact that the several

¶70

writ petitions have been filed on these grounds and orders have been passed as and when the petitioners/land owners approached this Court, on 19.09.2023 had directed the respondents-MUDA to make its stand clear with regard to proposed action to be taken at the respondents-MUDA

¶71

end, in respect of similarly situated land losers.

¶72

In response to the said order, today, learned counsel for the respondents-MUDA Sri.G.B.Sharath

¶73

Gowda, files an affidavit dated 10.10.2023 duly sworn to by Sri. Dinesh Kumar G.T, the Commissioner of Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysore.

¶74

In the affidavit, it is stated that though aforesaid lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of layouts as notified in the respective notifications, the scheme could not be implemented for want of cooperation from the land owners. It is deposed that several meetings were held by the authorities with the land owners to arrive

¶75

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶76

at a consensus and to complete the acquisition process. However, the same could not materialize resulting in nonimplementation of scheme. At para 9 of the affidavit providing details of such notifications and in-completed layouts/projects, it is further deposed that further steps would be taken with regard to the status/completion of acquisition process by the Board of the respondent No.1. In furtherance to the same, it is deposed that, it has been decided to place all the matters pertaining to acquisition process stated at para 9 of the affidavit in the next meeting of the Board and appropriate decision in this regard would be taken.

¶77

Learned counsel for the respondents-MUDA further submits that out of six items of notifications referred to at para 9, item no.6 namely, notification dated 03.07.2009 pertaining to Kergalli, RT Nagar II stage is pending consideration before the Apex Court. Therefore, he submits that decision in respect of remaining notifications would be taken by the Board.

¶78

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶79

Said submission and affidavit is taken on record.

¶80

The aforesaid direction dated 19.09.2023 was

¶81

issued requiring filing of an affidavit by the Commissioner of MUDA, in the teeth of the fact that several writ petitions were filed and land owners were made to run to this Court without any clarity on the part of the respondents-MUDA. Needless to state whenever State/ authorities proposed to acquire the land an impression is created among to the general public that the land is acquired to the public purpose and clarity in that regard has to be given as soon as possible/ practicable. Considering the fact that the land owners whose lands were notified in the notifications referred to at para 9 of the affidavit, were not given any clarity regarding status of the acquisition of their lands which constrained several of them to approach this Court.

¶82

It is submitted at the Bar that the many other

¶83

similarly situated land owners have not approached this

¶84

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶85

Court who appears to be still continuing under the said confusion without any clarity. It is in this regard in the interest of the land owners whose lands have been notified in those notifications and who had not approached this Court and in view of the this Court passing orders quashing the notifications in respect of the land owners/petitioners who had approached this Court, the aforesaid directions were issued.

¶86

In view of the affidavit now filed, this Court hopes and trusts that the respondents-MUDA would take appropriate decision in the matter to put rest to the confusion being created amongst the land owners whose lands have been notified under the aforesaid notifications. Learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA answers that such decision would be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶87

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:36968 WP No. 19604 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13415 of 2023 WP No. 21012 of 2023

¶88

Notwithstanding the above assurance given by the respondents-MUDA in the affidavit, in view of the orders similarly passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court quashing the preliminary notifications pertaining to the notifications referred to hereinabove, these petitions are also allowed and the respective preliminary notifications pertaining to the properties belonging to the petitioners referred to above, are hereby quashed.

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

A N Satyanarayana Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A N Satyanarayana Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K N Shivashankar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt H a Leenatha Reddy Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Deepak Anand Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Gangadharaiah Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

N Jeevesh Kumar Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Sri. a. Ramegowda Vs the State of Karnataka