Allowed

Sri. Joseph v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/7517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a preliminary notification for land acquisition issued in 2016, alleging an unexplained delay of over eight years. The High Court held that such delay was unreasonable, set aside the notification, and allowed the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The preliminary notification dated 28.06.2016 was set aside insofar as it related to the lands of the petitioners.

Sri. Joseph Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30882 WP No. 7517 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 7517 OF 2024 (LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. JOSEPH, S/O LATE KURIAKOASA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A CHOTHIRAKUNNELAYA AMBALATHATTIL, CHAMPAKARA KARA, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE OF CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KERALA STATE.

¶10

SMT. SALOMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O SRI. JOSEPH,

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

R/A CHOTHIRAKUNNELAYA AMBALATHATTIL, CHAMPAKARA KARA, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE OF CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KERALA STATE - 686 540.

¶13

SRI. KURUVILLA, S/O KURIAKOSE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO. 1052, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30882 WP No. 7517 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

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

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSIRANI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE CITY - 570 005.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;

¶23

SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT 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 IN SO FOR IT RELATES TO (a) P-1 LAND IN SY.NO. 24/1, 13/1 AND SY NO. 20/3 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRES, 5 ACRES AND 38 GUNTAS, AND 35 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY IN ALL MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 9 ACRES AND 33 GUNTAS AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30882 WP No. 7517 of 2024

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The lands of the petitioners have been sought to be acquired for the purposes of respondent No.2-Myosre Urban Development Authority (for short, 'the MUDA') and a preliminary notification dated 28.06.2016 was issued. However, it is submitted that thereafter there has been no progress in the acquisition proceedings and the same has been abonded.

¶30

For that reason, it is prayed that the preliminary notification, insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioners be set aside.

¶31

The aforementioned submission of the petitioners is not contravened by the respondents.

¶32

The acquisition proceedings have to be completed by the authorities concerned at the earliest and within a reasonable period. Inspite of delay of more than eight years, final notification has not been issued in the instant case and the same cannot be considered reasonable and

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:30882 WP No. 7517 of 2024

¶35

the acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. However, setting aside of the acquisition proceedings will not come in the way of the authorities concerned to initiate fresh proceedings in the manner known to law. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed .

¶38

ii. The preliminary notification bearing No. J¯ï

¶39

JPÀÆå (1) §/ 1/2016-17 dated 28.06.2016, issued under the Karntaka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioners are concerned.

¶40

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶41

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK

Sri. Joseph v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Joseph 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.B.S. Badrinath Vs Sri. Malleshappa

Smt Baby Vs Kookra Moolya

Sri. S. R. Sreenivasa Raju Vs Bylanjanappa @ Byalanjani

Smt. Hanumakka Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. H. Srinivasa Vs Smt. Gangamma

Sri Kempanna M Vs Sri H Siddalingappa @ Siddalingaiah