Smt. C. Ugama Bai, Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.46544/2012 DATED 05/08/2015.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶26

This appeal has been listed today at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to

¶27

the previous order passed by this Court in this appeal connected with WA No.2676/2015 on 15.11.2025 in the presence of all the counsel for the appellants and all the counsel for the respondents, the following order was passed:-

¶28

“Learned counsel for the appellants states that an O.M. of 05.08.2023 has been issued under the Authority of the Commissioner of the Mysore Urban Development Authority on the basis of which, the respondent-Authority be directed to execute a sale deed and this petition be disposed of.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentMysore Urban Development Authority states that the O.M. that is being sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants is de hors the guidelines of

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the Government and therefore, it does not require to be given any credence. He has also stated that the erstwhile Commissioner, who had issued the O.M., is being proceeded against departmentally and proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 have also been instituted against him.

¶33

In our opinion, the fact remains that the O.M. still exists and the respondent-Authority is keeping silent over it for more than two years. We are unable to understand the reason for this silence.

¶34

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority requests an adjournment to enable him to obtain instructions.

¶35

List this matter on 11.11.2025 at 02.30 p.m.

¶36

If the O.M. is withdrawn by that date, learned counsel shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit accordingly. If the O.M. is not withdrawn, then, we may seek explanation from the Authorities concerned.”

¶37

Today, in this appeal connected with WA

¶38

No.2676/2015 an affidavit of the Commissioner incharge, who is also the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Mysore Development Authority namely, Sri. K.R. Rakshith, has filed an affidavit, which reads as under:-

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

“ AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT No.2

¶43

I, K.R.Rakshith, aged about 36 years, S/o.K.Ramesh, resident of Mysore, now at Bangalore, do hereby state on oath as follows:

¶44

2. I submit that I am presently working as Commissioner (I/c) of the respondent No.2 and also the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent No.3 of Mysore Development Authority.

¶45

3. I submit that I have taken the charge of the aforesaid post on ……………..

¶46

4. I submit that I have acquired the knowledge of the above proceedings upon going through the records relating to the subject matter.

¶47

5. I submit that during the pendency of the above appeal, the appellants in the above appeal have submitted a representation dated 06.03.2023 requesting for allotment of alternate sites in lieu of the utilisation of their revenue sites.

¶48

6. I submit that the erstwhile Commissioner of the Authority relying upon the resolution dated 31.10.1998 and the order passed in W.P. Nos. 22428 to 22431/2013 connected with W.P.No. 46544/2012 and also the observations of this Hon’ble Court in the above writ appeals has proceeded to issue the Official Memorandum dated 05.08.2023 directing allotment of 8

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

residential sites of different dimensions in terms of the resolution dated 31.10.1998.

¶53

7. I submit that while issuing the said Official Memorandum, the following circumstances were not take note of:

¶54

i) The State Government by communication dated 31.07.2006 has rejected the proposal of MUDA for allotment of sites in terms of the resolution dated 31.10.1998. The fact of the said rejection is conspicuously absent in the Official Memorandum in question.

¶55

ii) The aforesaid circumstances has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court and disposed of the writ petition virtually permitting the Authority to acquire the land and pay compensation and damages as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 1904 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in the above writ appeal.

¶56

iii) The entitlement of the appellants for compensation for the utilisation of the land is yet to be decided by this Hon’ble Court in the above writ appeal.

¶57

iv) Even during pendency of the above appeal, a proposal which was sent to the State Government on 12.04.2019 seeking approval

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

for allotment of sites has not been approved by the State Government.

¶62

v) On 14.03.2023, the State Government, taking note of the indiscriminate decisions taken by the erstwhile Officers in allotting alternate sites and allot sites under 50:50 ratio has directed not to take any decisions in respect of the said matters till such time the State Government frames necessary guidelines. Dehorse the said instructions by the State, the Official Memorandum dated 05.08.2023 has been issued.

¶63

vi) The State Government has also passed an order on 27.10.2023 cancelling the resolution dated 14.09.2020 wherein a decision has been taken to allot sites to the land owners whose lands were acquired either without completing the acquisition or without paying the compensation.

¶64

vii) In the teeth of the aforesaid instructions and orders, the decision to allot sites in favour of the appellants could not have been taken and moreover the letters of allotment and absolute sale deeds in respect of four sites could not have been issued.

¶65

viii) When the matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court it was incumbent for the Officer to at least inform this Hon’ble Court before taking any decision in the matter.

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

8. I submit that in order to enquire into the illegalities in the matter of allotment of sites, the State Government has constituted a Single Member Enquiry Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice P.N.Desai (Retd.) to hold an enquiry and submit a report regarding allegation of illegal allotment and dereliction of duties as per the terms of the reference contained in the notification. Pursuant to the said notification, a Single Member Enquiry Commission has enquired into the matter as per the terms of the Reference and submitted the report to the State Government. Copies of the enquiry commission and terms of reference are produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R.1 and R.2.

¶70

9. I submit that the allotments made from the year 2006 to 2024 are all the subject matter of the enquiry by the Commission.

¶71

10.I submit that the Enquiry Commission has already submitted its report to the State Government and the state government is yet to consider the same and issue appropriate directions or guidelines to the Authority.

¶72

11. I submit that in the light of the appointment of the Enquiry Commission, the Official Memorandum in question and number of identical Official Memorandums which were issued by the erstwhile Officer were not given effect to from 02.07.2024 onwards.

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

12. I submit that, the erstwhile owner of the land Sri.Chikkanna has also objected for allotment of sites in favour of the appellants by submitting a representation on 30.05.2024. I submit that Sri. Chikkannna has filed WP No.25427/2025 challenging the official memorandum dated 05.08.2023 and the allotment letters and the sale deeds executed in favour of four of the appellants. The said Writ Petition is pending before this Hon’ble Court.

¶76

13. I submit that in terms of sub-section (2) of section 63 of the KUDA Act, the legality or propriety of any order or proceedings of the Officer subordinate to the Authority could be examined by the Authority and pass such orders as it thinks fit. No such order could be passed to the prejudice of any persons unless he had an opportunity of making representation. Similarly, the State Government may call for records of any proceedings of the Authority or any Officers subordinate to the Authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any orders or proceedings and may pass such orders with respect thereto as it thinks fit.

¶77

14. I submit that in the light of the aforesaid legal provision, in order to examine the legality or propriety of the Official Memorandum dated 05.08.2003, the matter will have to be placed before the Board/Authority for consideration.

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

15. I submit that in so far as the power of the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 63 of KUDA Act is concerned, not only the order which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, in order to examine the legality or propriety of the decisions taken by the Officer concerned, the Enquiry Commission has been constituted and the State Government is yet to take a decision on the report of the Enquiry Commission.

¶82

16. I submit that the subject regarding official memorandum dated 05.08.2023 would be placed before the Board/Authority in the ensuing meeting and the decision that would be taken in that regard would be placed before this Hon’ble Court for which this respondent seeks indulgence of grant of three weeks time.

¶83

17. I submit that the KUDA Act, 1987 has been repealed by the Mysore Development Authority Act, 2024 Act No.39 of 25 which has received the assent of His Excellency Governor of Karnataka on 13.05.2025. There is identical provision to that of section 63 of KUDA Act i.e Section 70 of the new Act.

¶84

18. I submit that the non-taking of steps on the Official Memorandum dated 05.08.2023 though it is contrary to the instructions of the State Government dated 14.03.2023 and the order dated 27.10.2023 is due to the aforesaid circumstances and bonafide reasons.

¶85

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45845-DB WA No. 2680 of 2015

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

19. I submit that the execution of 4 sale deeds in favour of Legal Representatives of appellant No.1 and 4, Rajashekarappa and Srikantappa (who are not the parties in the above appeal) and the appellant in WA No.2680/2015 was also during the tenure of the earlier Officer. If the Board of the Authority takes decision to annul the Official Memorandum dated 05.08.2023, appropriate steps for cancellation of the registered sale deeds would also be taken in accordance with law.

¶88

WHEREFOPRE, I respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this affidavit and grant three weeks time to take decision on the Official Memorandum dated 05.08.2023 and to place the result thereof before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶89

The learned counsel for the appellant in the instant appeal (Writ Appeal No.2680/2015) has filed two memos in Court. In one memo, it is submitted that the appellant has been allotted an alternate residential site by the Respondents No.2 & 3 and copies of the allotment letter, sale deed, katha extract and letters/legal notices have been enclosed. The other memo states that the appellant has been allotted a site and an absolute sale deed dated 02.02.2024 conveying the said site for consideration of Rs.14,21,000/- (Fourteen Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand) has been executed. In view of these

¶90