Smt.Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.08.2021 BY THE PETITIONER AT (ANNEXURE -A); DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION/PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS, AT THE EARLIEST, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A VIDE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.08.2021 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49525 WP No. 23216 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.08.2021 and to allot 40% developed lands in lieu of the monetary compensation for acquisition of land bearing Sy.Nos.5 and 6, measuring 5 acres 29 guntas and 5 acres 16 guntas respectively situated at Basavanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk (‘schedule properties’ for short) in terms of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites in Lieu of Compensation for the Land Acquired) Rules, 2009 (‘Rules, 2009’ for short).

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶34

The petitioners claim to be the lineal descendants of the original owner, whose lands were acquired. Respondent No.2 issued a preliminary

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49525 WP No. 23216 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

notification dated 23.12.1991 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUDA, Act’ for short), proposing to acquire the lands including the schedule properties for formation of residential area known as “Vijay Nagar, 4^th stage, 2^nd phase”. This was followed by a final notification under Section 19(1) of the KUDA Act and publication under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 06.08.1994.

¶38

The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the predecessors of the petitioners in W.P.No.15648650/1995. This Court upheld the acquisition but declared that all landowners whose lands were acquired were entitled to allotment of incentive sites, without insisting upon consent awards, as per the resolution dated 22.10.1990 and the petition came to be disposed of in the following terms:

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49525 WP No. 23216 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

“ORDER

¶42

i) The prayer of the petitioners for quashing the impugned notification is rejected.

¶43

ii) The Resolution dated 22^nd of October 1990 to the extent it provides that such of those land owners, who agree for payment of compensation by mutual consent, are only entitled for allotment of sites is declared as illegal and unenforceable in law and it is further declared that every one of the land owners, whose lands have been acquired by the Authority are entitled for allotment of site/s on the basis of the Resolution dated 22^nd of October 1990 made in subject No.7 by the Authority, without reference to the condition imposed, referred to above, which has been declared as void and illegal by me.

¶44

Despite the liberty granted, no representation

¶45

was submitted immediately. Thereafter, several rounds of litigation ensued. W.P.No.33095-106/2016 was dismissed reserving liberty to submit a representation.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49525 WP No. 23216 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Subsequently, W.P.Nos.36931-42/2017 were disposed of directing consideration of such representations.

¶49

Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 issued an official memorandum dated 22.08.2019 calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of ₹42,63,000/- towards sital value for allotment of three incentive sites. This was challenged in W.P.No.50542/2019, wherein this Court declined to quash the demand but granted time to comply.

¶50

Instead of complying with the said direction and depositing the sital value, the petitioners submitted a fresh representation seeking allotment of developed lands on a 50:50 ratio, and also approached the State Government. The proposals were ultimately rejected by the Government by communication dated 24.03.2023.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners’ representation dated 23.08.2021 seeking 50:50 allotment of developed lands remains unconsidered and that they are entitled to such allotment.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:49525 WP No. 23216 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

9. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent No.2-MUDA submits that the petitioners were repeatedly granted opportunities to avail incentive sites upon payment of sital value, which they have failed to comply with. It is contended that the claim for allotment of developed lands on a 50:50 ratio basis was never part of the earlier proceedings and stands rejected by the State Government.

¶56

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶57

From the material on record, it is evident that in all earlier rounds of litigation, the entitlement of the petitioners was confined to allotment of alternative incentive sites, subject to payment of sital value. At no point, did the petitioners seek allotment of developed lands on 50:50 basis. Despite repeated opportunities, the petitioners failed to comply with the directions requiring deposit of sital value.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49525 WP No. 23216 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Having failed to adhere to the binding directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings, the petitioners cannot now seek a writ of mandamus to compel consideration of a claim which is contrary to the settled course of litigation and which already stands rejected by the competent authority.

¶61