Karnataka High Court
M Jayaramulu S/O M Rangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9085
WP No. 103008 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103008 OF 2022 (KLR-CON)
between:
M. JAYARAMULU S/O M. RANGAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PLOT NO.12, JRS RESIDENCY,
NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, BELLARY,
TALUK: BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY,
PIN-583101.
... PETITIONER
(BY MISS. SANJANA P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
BELLARY, TALUK: BELLARY,
Digitally
signed by
DIST: BELLARY-583101.
BHARATHI H
M
Location:
BHARATHI
HM
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELLARY,
2024.07.06
12:14:49
+0530
TALUK: BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY,
PIN-583101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN
RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS IS LAPSED
AND ABANDONED AND DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO DE
NOTIFY THE SUIT PROPERTIES FROM THE ACQUISITION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9085
WP No. 103008 of 2022
PROCEEDINGS BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02/03/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Miss Sanjana S. Mudhol for Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State as well as learned counsel Smt.Soubhagya S. Vakkund appearing for respondent No.3.
2. Petitioner has purchased the property mentioning in the schedule to the writ petition by virtue of a registered Sale Deed for a valuable consideration. Respondent No.3- Bellary Urban Development Authority took a decision for formation of layout in the ratio of 50:50 ownership in respect of 06 acre of land in question, based on which, respondent No.3 issued Public Notice on 12.04.2017 informing the public at large with regard to the acquisition of land for non- agricultural purpose under master plan and sought for objections from the public, if any.
3. Petitioner being the owner of the property in question approached respondent No.3 and consented for -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9085 WP No. 103008 of 2022 50:50 ratio policy and was ready to handover the property for formation of layout in the scheme. A Deed of Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 by way of consent agreement. However, respondent No.3 has not proceeded further in furtherance of the notification and the consent agreement to execute project in the scheme.
4. Petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent either to drop the proceedings or to proceed further in terms of the agreement and the notification issued to proceed further in the scheme as the petitioner was incurring huge financial loss. Petitioner also made an application to the Acquisition Officer dated 19.07.2016, whether the property was acquired or not, to which an endorsement was issued by the concerned authority informing the petitioner vide letter dated 04.10.2016 that the property in question was not acquired. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent neither formed layout as per the scheme of ratio of 50:50 neither proceeded further as per the notification nor -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9085 WP No. 103008 of 2022 it de-notified the property in question belonging to the petitioner. Due to which, the petitioner is put to hardship and financial loss. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent of acquisition being lapsed, so also the agreement entered into between the parties as the 3rd respondent has not proceeded further in accordance to the agreement for formation of the layout.
5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is present before the Court. She contends that it is not possible for the 3rd respondent to now de-notify the land in question as acquisition process is over and the agreement entered into between the parties cannot be revoked.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.100828/2023(LA-UDA), wherein a similar matter the same 3rd respondent had initiated similar process of acquisition of the land, entered into a 'Memorandum of Understanding' for formation of a layout, but did not proceed further which was questioned before this Court and this -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9085 WP No. 103008 of 2022 Court allowed the petition and quashed the endorsement therein and also the 'Memorandum of Understanding' entered into between the parties. Hence, the petitioner has filed a memo for disposal of this petition in accordance to the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the petition stated (supra). It is not in dispute by the respondent No.3 that the purpose for which the acquisition was sought has not been complied or fulfilled and the same is abandoned without making any development or formation of the layout and the 3rd respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner by way of a 'Memorandum of Understanding' for the purpose of execution of the scheme, which it intended to but in view of the same has not having been fulfilled or formed in accordance to the intent of the notification, the same requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The acquisition proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent would not survive as the same is -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9085 WP No. 103008 of 2022 not acted or proceeded further in the matter by forming layout. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. The property would have to be de-notified so also the 'Memorandum of Understanding' entered into by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent would stand revoked.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKK CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6