Sri Basave Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

ALL THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 14 ARE REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. T. VIBHUVARSH S/O B.S. TULASIRAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, CHADURANGA ROAD, E & F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 922.

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

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

¶42

THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶43

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER MYSROE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANIS RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶46

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20^TH DECEMBER, 2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.54485 OF 2016 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:45371 RP NO. 61 OF 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking review of order dated 20^th December, 2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.54485 of 2016 particularly, with regard to observation made at paragraphs 11 to 13 therein.

¶54

Heard Sri. Manmohan P.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶55

Sri. Manmohan P.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the RTC extracts produced at Annexures 'A', 'E' 'Q' and 'Q1' submits that the petitioners are owners of the land bearing Survey No.123/1 of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk to an extent of 6 acre 14 guntas, however, the respondent-Mysuru Urban Development Authority had passed award only to an extent of 5 acre 3 guntas for acquiring, leaving the land to an extent of 1 acre 11

¶56

5 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:45371 RP NO. 61 OF 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

guntas and therefore, to that extent interference be called for in this Review Petition.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to Report of the Special Revenue Inspector produced at Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed by the respondent-MUDA in Writ Petition No.54485 of 2016 submitted that, in the said report nothing has been produced by the respondent-Authorities to establish that, the land to an extent 1 acre 11 guntas is Kharab land and the award is passed by the respondents to an extent of only 5 acre 3 guntas. Therefore the acquisition made by the respondent-Authorities as per the Preliminary Notification dated 23^rd December, 1991 (AnnexureB) and Final Notification dated 10^th December, 1993 (AnnexureC) requires to be quashed in respect of 1 acre 11 guntas. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶61

Per contra, Sri. G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 sought to justify fact that the petitioners have to establish their right over the property to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 refers to the

¶62

6 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:45371 RP NO. 61 OF 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Annexure-R4 in the statement of objections and submitted that

¶66

the total extent of Kharab land is 1 acre 11 guntas, in which, the petitioners have no right to claim the compensation nor seeking relief of abandonment of acquisition proceedings insofar as the Kharab land is concerned. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the Review Petition.

¶67

Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 argued on the similar lines as that of Sri. G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶68

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully perused the Revenue records particularly the RTC extracts produced at Annexures 'A', 'E', 'Q' and 'Q1', wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the total extent of land bearing Survey No.123/1 of Basavanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk is 6.14 acres, in which, this Court in the order dated 20^th December, 2024 passed in Writ Petition No.54485 of 2016, had directed the petitioners to establish their right in respect of land to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas. In this regard, I have carefully examined the Report of the Special

¶69

7 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:45371 RP NO. 61 OF 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Revenue Inspector dated 19^th July, 2001 produced at Annexure-R1, wherein it is stated that the total extent of land bearing Survey No.123/1 of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk is 6.14 acres and bifurcates 1.11 acre from the total extent of 6.14 acres, however it is not stated that, 1 acre 11 guntas is Kharab land. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners produced the Notification dated 19^th December, 2023 issued by the respondent No.2, wherein, the respondent No.2 stated as follows:

¶73

"ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA-123/1 gÀ°è£À ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ «ªÀgÀ PÉ¼ÀV£ÀAwzÉ:

¶74

Dgï.n.¹	RgÁ§Ä	RgÁ§Ä	LwÃ¥ÀÄð	¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ
PÀ®A £ÀA-9		ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹	ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ	¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À
gÀ°è£À «¹ÛÃtð		G½zÀzÀÄÝ	«¹ÛÃtð	¥Àr¸ÀzÉÃ G½zÀ «¹ÛÃtð
6-17	00-03-00	6-14	05-03-00	1-11
JPÀgÉ		JPÀgÉ	JPÀgÉ	JPÀgÉ

¶75

Taking into consideration the fact that the total

¶76

extent of land belonging to the petitioners is 6 acre 14 guntas, out of which, the award has been passed to an extent of 5 acre 3 guntas and no acquisition has been made in respect of land to an extent 1 acre 11 guntas, which is belonging to the

¶77

8 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:45371 RP NO. 61 OF 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

petitioners in the land bearing Survey No.123/1 of Basavanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the finding recorded by this Court in the order dated 20^th December, 2024 passed in Writ Petition No.54485 of 2016 at paragraph 11 to 13 requires to be reviewd/modified in this Review Petition as there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the total extent of land belonging to the petitioners is 6 acre 14 guntas, out of which, the award has been passed to an extent of 5 acre 3 guntas. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued on 13^th February, 2002 (Annexure-R3) by the respondent No.3, specifying that the possession of the land has been taken on 19^th July, 2001 to an extent of 5 acre 3 guntas in Survey No.123/1 of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and same is reiterated in the award produced at Annexure-R4, which exclude the land to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas belonging to the petitioners, which is not a Kharab land.. Therefore, the impugned Preliminary Notification dated 23^rd December, 1991 (Annexure-

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:45371 RP NO. 61 OF 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

B) issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 and the Final Notification dated 10^th December, 1993 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 19(1) of the said Act are hereby declared as lapsed in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas in Survey No.123/1 of Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk as the respondents have not taken any action in respect of the same by taking possession or paid compensation and that, apart land to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas has been excluded for the acquisition proceedings.

¶85

In that view of the matter, the observation made by this Court at paragraphs 11 to 13 in the order dated 20^th December, 2024 passed in Writ Petition No.54485 of 2016 is hereby modified and same is rectified accordingly in this petition. With this observation, Review Petition stands

¶86

disposed of.

¶87

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶88

ARK

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Basave Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Basave Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Nanda Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner

G C Nataraj Vs Smt B M Kathyayini

Sri C R Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj N Naidu Vs Subramanyeshwra Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Smt. Lalitha. H. S. Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh Naik L Vs State Police Compliant Authority