Basappa S/O Rangappa Marabannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 16-11-2010 BEARING NO. HU.DA.NA.PRA.BHUSWA.2.VI.VAHI.1/2010-11/3437 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B INSOFAR AS LAND BEARING SY.NO.76/4 MEASURING 3 GUNTAS SITUATED AT GOKUL VILLAGE, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8903 WP No. 102528 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS; DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT AND SECTION 24 (1) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO LAND BEARING SY.NO.76/4 MEASURING 3 GUNTAS SITUATED AT GOKUL VILLAGE, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶27

The subject matter of the petition is agricultural land

¶28

bearing Survey No.76/4 measuring 3 guntas situated at Gokul village, taluk Hubballi, district Dharwad. Respondent No.2 prepared a development scheme and consequently drew up a notification by issuing notification under Section 17(1) and 17(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1-State approved the scheme, however, found that the petition lands notified to implement the developmental scheme were found to be not feasible. Respondent No.2, therefore, resolved to drop the entire scheme pertaining to Gokul village and in a meeting held on 06.08.2016 passed

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8903 WP No. 102528 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

resolution No.2 and resolved to recommend for dropping the scheme, which is evident from Annexure-C. The Commissioner of respondent No.2 thereafter sent recommendation to respondent No.1-State recommending to drop the scheme and consequent acquisition vide correspondence dated 12.09.2016 as per Annexure-D. Similar reminder was sent by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F. The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.1-State is compelled to knock the doors of the Writ Court.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶34

It is borne out from the records that respondent No.2 issued preliminary notification on 16.11.2010. However, respondent No.2 has recommended to drop the scheme. If preliminary notification was issued in 2010 and respondent No.2 being a competent development authority

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8903 WP No. 102528 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

has recommended to drop the scheme, the scheme prepared by respondent No.2 even otherwise would lapse. Section 27 of the Act clearly contemplates that the Authority has to execute the scheme within five years from the date of publication of final declaration issued under sub-section (1) to Section 19 of the Act. In the present case on hand, respondent No.2 has found that the petition lands are not feasible for development scheme and therefore, recommendation is sent. The captioned petition needs to be allowed on two counts. Firstly, respondent No.2 being competent development authority has resolved to drop the proceedings on the ground that the petition lands are not feasible to implement the scheme. Secondly, the preliminary notification is also liable to be quashed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not resolved to issue final declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. Since there is failure to adhere to time schedule prescribed under Section 27 of the Act, the scheme has automatically lapsed and therefore, the sanction granted

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8903 WP No. 102528 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

by respondent No.1 to implement the scheme prepared by respondent No.2 also does not survive for consideration. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned notification dated 16.11.2010 issued by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-B insofar as land bearing Sy.No.76/4 measuring 3 guntas situated at Gokul village, TalukaHubballi, District Dharwad is hereby quashed by holding that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act.

¶44

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶45

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Basappa S/O Rangappa Marabannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa S/O Rangappa Marabannavar v. the 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

Shri. Keshav Cement and Ifra Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sundar Rao Alias Sundaramaiah S/O Late Gopalkrishnaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Nana Dhondiba Desai Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Khalika Abdul Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa R Patil Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Smt. Venulabai W/O Sitaram Kadam Vs Smt. Rajashri W/O Prabhakar Pol